spook

Me? Dark Side (of the Moon) on a 'shaving mirror' to replace my well worn vinyl.

Too mean to buy it new, bought it through 'estocks' on ebay who I have found to be a very good source of very good second hand CD's and DVD's.

Just curious, anyone else (still?) into Vinyl and analogue amplifier chain?

I absolutely agree about BC's needing to get a great deal of exercise and also an opportunity to be intellectually stimulated by what they find as they do. It may be my imagination but I'm convinced that BC's are one of the few breeds of dog that can and do smile when they're happy.

The very thought of some poor BC stuck living in a town is horrid, mind you the thought of any dog other than the breeds that have been developed to be lap dogs living in town is appalling.

I really believe that instead of dogs being licensed (they're not over here) it's the owners who should be licensed based on them demonstrating competence and knowledge of what is needed to keep a dog in a satisfactory manner.

The result would be far fewer unhappy dogs.

 

 

Well then stop breeding them to be indoor. You're obstructing natural selection.

 

Do you, or have you ever owned a dog?

No, I don't believe living beings can be "owned". I did, however, grow up with a canine friend.

Our one stray cat sees ownership more in the conventional meaning.

Well then stop breeding them to be indoor. You're obstructing natural selection.

Do you, or have you ever owned a dog?

 

But some breeds of dog have been bred to be 'indoor' dogs.

 

There's no way that our recently acquired Border Collie falls into that category, but many of the 'toy' breeds do.

 

Border Collies are hands down the best dogs though.

 

Most of the breed are indeed wonderful but they do need to know and be kept in their place, more so than other breeds because of their massive intelligence.

Right now our (once stray) cat is making sure that the pecking order of cat, wife, me, and dog is maintained.

 

 

Oh, I see.

 

No it would not matter what type of dog it was, it would get the same treatment.

Apart from guide dogs, police dogs and farm dogs, there is NO reason for dogs !

 

 

I agree. The only exception would be people who own lots of land and can keep them on it. Certainly people living in crowded urban areas or in flats shouldn't have dogs. Dogs need to live out in the countryside - anything else is unfair to them.

 

But some breeds of dog have been bred to be 'indoor' dogs.

There's no way that our recently acquired Border Collie falls into that category, but many of the 'toy' breeds do.

Dilly, have you ever had a dog?

Don't know about kicking a dog, I'd like to kick some sense into the kids parent(s) who left a dog within reach of a child.

Oh look, it's you again, just popping in to spread a little bit more love and joy I see...

Just telling it like it is.

Sorry if it it's not what people might like to hear, but it's how I, and a lot of other people, feel.

Jersey and Guernsey have far far more to offer cruise tourists than the Island. Sorry, but that's a fact.

Unfit for purpose. How much longer will the Manx government allow this farce to continue??

The UA imposes a monopoly.

Monopolies always operate to the disadvantage of the market.

If once the UA proved to be other than a VERY short term drawback to the monopoly holder the monopoly holder would be off faster than a scalded cat.

 

Yep, all standard stuff. Shame the user agreement is there to stop the SP doing it.

do you think that given your own post, they would choose to run a fast craft/sail to Ireland/sail as frequently as they do in the winter.

Ditch the UA and let them run it as they see fit and see if any competitors come forward.

Be prepared for all the whining about reduced services though.

Hey Spook. Maybe you missed the question in my most, possibly because I didn't bother to put a question mark at the end?

Do you think the UA is there for the SPs benefit?

In reality it is there to make sure that whoever operates the UA is forced to run the non profitable parts of the service that we as a population desire. Of course, in return there needs to be bits in there to protect their investment as a business but no business running it purely as a commercial operation would retain some of the elements they are forced into by the UA.

I do believe that the UA is being used by the ferry company to their advantage.

 

 

Perhaps we should allow the operator to run a commercially sustainable service. Scrap the UA, but put a requirement out to tender that allows the bidders flexibility in how they meet the requirement. What's the point in insisting on twice daily NW England passenger crossings year-round? The operator should be able to run a winter PAX service 3 weekdays and Saturday, but a daily freight crossing.

 

Now that is a GOOD suggestion. At least something along those lines.

Only GOOD if you have no need to use the service. Where was it you live?

Somewhere that I don't need to rely on a pissant inadequate unfit for purpose ferry!

Perhaps we should allow the operator to run a commercially sustainable service. Scrap the UA, but put a requirement out to tender that allows the bidders flexibility in how they meet the requirement. What's the point in insisting on twice daily NW England passenger crossings year-round? The operator should be able to run a winter PAX service 3 weekdays and Saturday, but a daily freight crossing.

Now that is a GOOD suggestion. At least something along those lines.

 

 

 

There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'.

There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out.

Doing away with the monopoly that the ferry company is exploiting and has been for far too long would allow things to be sorted out.

 

Markets should determine how businesses are run, not monopolies.

What if the market isn't anywhere near big enough for a business to operate in the way their customers expect them to and remain profitable?

 

Then the market supplier tailors his product to meet his needs and the customer pays for what he wants.

If the customer wants more than the supplier is offering he will demand it and will pay more to get it.

If the provider is charging more than the custom is prepared to pay then the customer will look for another provider who might buy into the market by loss leading which will bring prices down.

Good grief, these are basic Adam Smith tried, proven, and trusted economic principles.

Allowing a monopoly to enter the free market economy NEVER works to the customer's advantage.

 

There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'.

 

There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out.

 

Doing away with the monopoly that the ferry company is exploiting and has been for far too long would allow things to be sorted out.

Markets should determine how businesses are run, not monopolies.

Well done to the SPC for getting the Ben back in service. It's all too easy to forget what a wonderful job they do until something goes wrong.

There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'.

Well I had to didn't I!

 

 

We should extend the user agreement and then the SPC will invest in some smart new craft.

 

I honestly can not think of a worse thing to do than extend the UA. The ferry company are not and have not and will not act in the best interest of anyone other than the ferry company while the monopoly exists.

The fact that they continue to call themselves what they do defocuses the reality, it is a ferry company that has a monopoly to provide a ferry service to the Island.

I beg to differ.

They acted in the best interests of many, when they assisted your passage to pastures new.

Certainly from my point of view.

 

The ferry is unfit for purpose.

 

You are wrong.

The BMC is about 99% reliable

the issue isn't reliability, it is fitness for purpose.

We should extend the user agreement and then the SPC will invest in some smart new craft.

 

I honestly can not think of a worse thing to do than extend the UA. The ferry company are not and have not and will not act in the best interest of anyone other than the ferry company while the monopoly exists.

The fact that they continue to call themselves what they do defocuses the reality, it is a ferry company that has a monopoly to provide a ferry service to the Island.

The ferry is unfit for purpose.

 

 

Give 'em 5 years, the HyperLoop should be ready for public use after that

 

Left to the present shower they would be convinced to invest in a hyper loo.

Such a project would end up being mired in hyperpoop.

Taxed of course.

Give 'em 5 years, the HyperLoop should be ready for public use after that

Left to the present shower they would be convinced to invest in a hyper loo.