hboy

The advertisers know that outside of a decrepit pensioners and taxi drivers no one really listens to MR outside news, weather and obituaries. That is why MR struggle to sell advertising and keep coming up with shit ideas. If the station was as popular as you make out then why are they doing this?Correct. If I was selling stair lifts I might pay to advertise on MR. Anything for people under 60 - total waste of money Yep stair lifts, Tena Lady, Preparation H, and rover tickets for the MER & horse trams. Outside of that nobody in their right mind would advertise to the elderly and decrepit audience of Manx Radio. It does, however, have a good line in adverts telling people how great just about every department of government is at something.

Teeny boppers? Who are you, 'Fluff' Freeman? Just shows you're probably part of the MR in crowd if you're still stuck using stupid 1950s phrases like that.

There's an effective shopping portal here. I can't imagine that Manx Radio will beat it for choice even if they spend their whole subvention on it: www.amazon.com

Looks like it's powered by bullshit ....

BBC says it's a blown cylinder head so that's not going to get fixed overnight.

Despite the fact that 96% of them voted to stay in the EU. Now they have the chance to do that via Spain. The place is a dump full of the most awful British expats anyway. I hope it costs Arron Banks, who has an insurance company based in Gib as one of his primary wealth generators a lot of money in the long term.

Yes and a perfect opportunity for them to revert back to Spanish rule if the 96% still feel the same way. The UK has sold them down the river and sooner of later they might finally realize that. Gibs future is within the EU not tagged on to a dying colonial power that is going nowhere fast. the 99% overrules that eurotards Jesus, libtards, eurotards ... only RETARDS use those sort of definitions.

Yes and a perfect opportunity for them to revert back to Spanish rule if the 96% still feel the same way. The UK has sold them down the river and sooner of later they might finally realize that. Gibs future is within the EU not tagged on to a dying colonial power that is going nowhere fast.

Aye, a small part of a small country was able to stop the EU in its tracks, just shame that hadn't happened before the vote, would have stopped the whole "unelected dictatorship" bollocks right there and then I hope Howard Quayle is watching this closely because how they deal with a small nation like Gib is going to be the template for how they deal with other small nations like us. This is the first proper political football in the Brexit negotiations. Can't see they would support us if their interests and our interests were in conflict. The only thing in Gibs favour is that Spain wants it. Nobody will want us, or to do a deal with us, if it ever come down to it because of our alleged abusive tax practices. Ironically Gib voted almost 95% to Remain so it's citizens have been royally shafted by the British public.

I hope he was driving in thick rubber soled shoes.

Medical decisions are medical decisions. They are about how to best manage and support the publics general health and wellbeing. They should have nothing to do with what some people believe to be right or wrong. Was the medic tending the murderer in Westminster the other day wrong for trying use his medical know how to offer medical assistance to a mass murderer who had just killed 4 people? Again another moral argument as opposed to the fact the guy was a trained medic who was trained to saves lives (any lives) as his profession. Like journalists they should be impartial. Your arguments don't make sense and are just provocative for the sole purpose of being provocative. Not long ago homosexuality was a crime in the IOM. Criminalizing those sort of activities was the state imposing its view of what it regarded as immoral (or deviant) behaviour or activity. That affected the health and wellbeing of many people I assume as it made aspects of their preferred lifestyle illegal and put them in fear of arrest. That's another moral argument that should never have been a moral argument. It should be about the state (especially the health services) creating an environment that respects people and looks after and supports peoples general wellbeing. Regardless of what some might privately think about peoples' morals. That's the whole point here. People's perception of others mortally (or lack of it) has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the state being responsible for providing appropriate care and support to Manx women. Also Beecroft and the DHSCs message is sexist and subjegating. It's enforcing that it's a man's ultimate right to impregnate a woman and to force her to endure child birth and the rest of her life being responsible for a child even if he remains free to bugger off and have nothing to do with it. And don't expect the state to sanction that she has any form of control over her own body to fight against the situation shes been put in. It's almost medieval and misogynist in the extreme. Typical of the IOM though. We are often the most backward nation going when it comes to social progress and equality.

You're just trying to be provocative in your usual irritating way. What I said all along is that this should be a clinical decision based on the clinical evidence of experts and nothing to do with people's personal opinions. If laws and policy changes within the DHSC are to be determined purely by people's personal views of morality which group of people are going be discriminated against next by the DHSC? Morality is purely subjective in the eyes of the person who holds those views. At least clinical evidence has much more tangible substance in determining how clinical and medical services like abortion are delivered. Of course it's a woman's right to choose. How naive of you to try to claim that they should legally have no control over what they put their own bodies through. We're not living in the 18th Century where society condemns the "fallen" women and punishes them and their children for the rest of their lives. They should have the right to choose whether psychologically, emotionally, financially, or physically they can put themselves through a pregnancy. And of course the state does allow individuals to kill - the army are conferred such powers, so are armed police officers. Doctors are also legally bound by do not resuscitate orders and the likes. The state determines the right to kill or to allow someone to stand back and allow a person to die in all of these situations. Stop trying to be a provocative drama queen.

Laurie Hoopers latest justification via LV on this is priceless: "My reading of the DHSC statement was simply that they hadn't any medical evidence to support a change in law - they didn't say they'd asked for any and didn't comment at all on whether the law should be changed, only that they didn't have any medical evidence to suggest it needed to be updated." He clearly supports the widespread use of professional dis information, and other double speak measures, within official communications with the public on such serious matters. It's all ok as they didn't say they asked for an opinion before they said that they found no evidence of what they didn't ask for.

Yes where WE live and where the issues associated with Brexit are totally different to the issues that arise in the UK. If you had read it (which you haven't, be honest) you might have a better grasp of the issues as they apply to US not the sad Little Englanders who live across the pond who are destined to a land of milk and honey apparently. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/136/136.pdf

Change the record. Have you read the report? Of course you haven't. Full of Brexit related shite as normal. Yes. Have you? Yes it's in the link to the BBC report. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/136/136.pdf Not the utter shite you linked to which Mojo points out if someone else had produced it you would have said was written by "Libtards"

Change the record. That report concerns the U.K. Not the IOM where the issues are different. Have you read the report mentioned by the BBC? Of course you haven't. Full of Brexit related shite as normal.

Brexit impact will be significant on Crown Dependencies says House of Lords Committee http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-39368341 It's been completely obvious from day one that this was always going to be the issue despite all the BS posted on here by the English Brexiteers. Nice to see Quayle's comments agreeing there are very valid concerns related to the freedom of movement of goods as well.

Not on Manx Radio they aren't. Funny that got your back up as more than a few people must have noticed that it was hilarious amateurish shite.

But that isn't a legal requirement to report fresh hourly news. About 15 minutes of footage on constant loop would be more than enough without them having to feel obligated into reporting the crappy minutiae of absolutely nothing every hour on the hour. The walking around Douglas landmarks from the past feature the other afternoon was hilarious. Hearing some boring old fart trying to describe (on the radio) what used to stand on the spot he was stood at whilst a car alarm loudly went off in the background for 5 minutes was pure class.

You must be a real expert in managing time on the basis that you seem to spend at least 5 hours a day posting confrontational nonsense on here just to wind people up. The other 2 hours must really fly by for such an alleged big wig. Which civil service department do you head up given all the free time you have during the day and your general anger at any criticism of IOMG?

Not odd at all as that is the exact subtext of your posts in this thread. Not that you probably mean it as you're probably just an aggressive wind up merchant who has fuck all to keep them busy at work and just logs in here to have a fight with people and to try to look clever because you're bored.

Is this a serious post? We get it. You're a misogynist who thinks most women are tarts who sleep around. Except the ones who have had abortions. They're probably all automatically slags in your caveman world. This whole thread has been unbelievable for it's prejudice and the false morality argument shown by either the religious nutters or the misogynists amongst us. It all shows us how it's almost impossible to bring any sensible policies in on the IOM because there are so many blinkered, opinionated, arseholes around who still think we live in the 1850's. The same will happen on Allinsons proposed exploration on medical use of cannabis as well. A perfectly sensible proposal which the luddites and the falsely pious folk will oppose vehemently as well. Makes you wonder why he bothered standing for MHK as he can't possibly bring any progress in on such a stupid blinkered society.

I think she should be made to explain whether she did or didn't as all she has done is leave a lot of women unprotected and vulnerable at a time when they probably need the support of the Manx health system the most. If that is because she, or people in her team, hold certain religious views then I think thats utterly disgusting.Someone's dislike of abortion doesn't need to stem from religion. It does really because they should have relied on clinical advice when setting policy on clinical matters. If clinical advice had said that there were issues then it's fine to act on that advice. Otherwise it's just people's opinions (as it would seem to be in this case) that are setting clinical policies. Most people opinions are driven by their beliefs and a good proportion of those beliefs come from their religious beliefs or personal views on mortality. Those views should have absolutely no role in setting clinical policy. Pursuing this policy will leave women more vulnerable and more exposed simply because the people setting the policy clearly believe that these women should continue to be outcasts who should be denied medical support and treatment in the IOM that is freely available to women in the UK because they simply don't like the situation they end up in (i.e, pregnant and distraught) and falsely assume they are women of low morals if they wish to have an abortion (which is totally untrue in most cases) because that's what their religion or beliefs has told them.

But where will it stop? Gay men not getting treated for prostate cancer as their prostate has taken a bit of a battering and the health chiefs don't agree with their lifestyle? It sets an awful precedent and all those concerned need to explain why the decision was made without consulting professionally qualified and trained staff on the actual clinical issues.

I think she should be made to explain whether she did or didn't as all she has done is leave a lot of women unprotected and vulnerable at a time when they probably need the support of the Manx health system the most. If that is because she, or people in her team, hold certain religious views then I think thats utterly disgusting.