notwell

6 hours ago, 2112 said:

Too many vested interests competing for Government infrastructure spending, then no doubt the monopoly in running it and holding the island to ransom. The politicos and Skelly can’t even come up with a definitive spend from cruise tourists - not taking Government museums, transport and facilities into account. What’s the likely spend on gifts, ice creams, cafes, bacon rolls, pasties and chips, cheese and gravy?

Who are the vested interests specifically? 

36 minutes ago, DragonS said:

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=37110&headline=Ferries to make way for £50m cruise terminal§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017

 

From the attached article it appears the cost of the development of the new IOM Terminal has risen to £30m from £20m.

I think it's about time this was nailed and a price fixed so a proper discussion can be had with the sea packet/others on any future passenger agreement.

That could equally just be fluff to make a bigger case to planning.

The submission could have said 15 or 50m.  It wouldn't make it right.

3 hours ago, j2bad said:

News, a working website, video content, local competitions engaging schools and work places, oh and adverts but no where near as intrusive as the way Manx radio do it. They are a radio station trying to be a radio station not some weird attempt at social engineering that Manx Radio is trying and failing to be.

Lol.

Does 3fm provide anything other than  basic music content really?

9 minutes ago, James Hampton said:

I'm not disputing who they are or what they do, but are you telling me that CoC policy is set by all people employed by those businesses, or by the people who control them? Are you seriously trying to imply that the CoC is politically neutral? 

 

I will restate that I am not commenting on their policies. 

It's hardly politically radical is it?

On the basis politics in general on the island is at best amateurish I don't see how there is some huge political conspiracy agenda at work here.

It seeks a better IOM.  No big deal there.

Manx Radio joins it.  And on the whole seems to seek a better IOM.

Like I said,  you're trying to find issues that don't exist.

11 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

That's a stupid question and misses my point completely. Have a little think about it.

It doesn't really miss your point.

If you think they have a bias or view about what is best for the island and you think it isn't the correct view then what is best for the island?

Virtually every sector of business is represented by the way (in relation to their 'view')

What is then?

30 minutes ago, Robert Mugabe said:

You're absolutely right, James. It's obvious to everyone with more than two brain cells. I can understand why Notwell is having trouble figuring it out.

Well that'll be two of us then given your brain cell count.

I think you are looking into it far too deeply James.

The Chamber has a number of members from retail, law, insurance, engineering, telecoms, banking, IT, eGaming, travel to name a few.

All of those sectors and companies employ huge numbers of people.   And those sectors support  or are interlinked with everything else.   It isn't about minority interests of a few. Far from it really.

As for Manx Radio joining - it looks straight forward to me.  It's an opportunity for them to sell their services to a ready made audience and one bit of business covers the fee.

I don't really agree that the chamber is hugely agenda drive  aside of just really wanting what is best for the island.

4 minutes ago, James Hampton said:

Are the directors or beneficiaries of businesses not a minority on the IOM?

I think you completely don't understand what the Chamber is about or does.

How do they represent a minority group?

2 minutes ago, James Hampton said:

It doesn't really matter whether it's £12 or £12k does it? It's the fact that a national broadcaster supported by public money is apparently happy to be seen to be fully supportive of a distinct political lobby group, which openly seeks to promote a the interests of a particular minority demographic - no? I've no idea if there is a statement that MR is supposed to be politically neutral, but it cannot be if this is the case. 

How would people feel if the Celtic League Isle of Man Branch became "POWERED BY" it's newest corporate member Manx Radio? 

The CoC is made up of a wide ranging number of businesses.   Do you actually know anything about it? 

11 minutes ago, vee_dub said:

Fuck me that’s desperate...the bloated face of a boozer if ever I saw one 

Is that part of the 24 hour stint he's doing for Dream Catcher?

47 minutes ago, Brother Numspaa said:

A whole £12 or so of taxpayers' money, you goon............

Not really fuckleberry

1 hour ago, LeoZeo said:

Depends if they’re registering as a charity or a business. If a business (which is the only way I can see to become a “sustaining member”), you can see the fees at the bottom of page 1 of this membership application form. 

£220 if 8 or fewer employees. £650 if more than 8 employees. How many employees are there at Manx Radio?

Oh wow. Ok. A whole twelve quid or so a week. 

2 minutes ago, LeoZeo said:

Even membership comes with an annual fee, so they’re definitely funding and a member of an active political group. I wonder what the Chamber of Commerce would have to say if Manx Radio were to join Unite the Union as a member?

How much is the annual fee?

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Even by the standards of Manx Radio 'management', this is pretty all pretty odd.  According to the IOM Newspapers piece[1] "Manx Radio is now providing a service on video and its own version of the BBC’s iPlayer system".  But of course they've had a listen again facility for years  and what Anthony Pugh describes as "initiatives [that]will put it ’ahead of the market’ " appear to consist of video clips on the website and using webcams. Even the actual webcams aren't new.  If you look at the interview that Brindley and Gavin Smith from Manx Telecom gave to a rather sceptical John Moss, the facility has been there since their latest lot of equipment was installed years ago, they've just never bothered to use it.

This has all been branded, both portentously and redundantly as "the portal".  They make a big thing about hosting other people's content, which  consists in a large part of Paul Moulton stuff for MTTV, plus  some other stuff (mainly sport-related) they appear to have published already on YouTube.  Of course Moulton's stuff mainly illustrates just how poor and scanty their own in-house offerings  are.

Now studio webcams of radio programmes have been around for a very long time - the Today programme's started in 2000 for example.  Although Manx Radio don't even appear to intend to do something as high tech as that  Rather than showing the full Mandate (say) in all its glory, a few token clips appear to be put up when they feel like it.  Brindley makes much about how people now consume news over the internet, but Manx Radio's effort in that direction haven't changed for many years[2] and this really does nothing much to add to this[3].  You suspect it may have been prompted by 3fm starting to use video clips in their news reporting online, despite their not having anything near Manx Radio's news budget or  public service remit.

So in other words this is just Manx Radio continuing to party like it's 1999.

 

[1]  You imagine them trying to write it in as neutral a tone as possible, while stifling giggles.  The piece is one of the few times when they quote things as being "from a press release", rather than just copying and pasting its contents, presumably wishing to distance themselves from the nonsense as much as possible.

[2]   In their last big reorganisation (2012?) they actually got rid of the website editor along with making most of the presenters freelance.  The number of managers remained unchanged however.

[3]  For example it's very rare to have online news items or their associated sound clips of any length at all and most of the new video snippets are similarly truncated.  They still seem to designed as 'tasters' to get someone to listen to the original (unlinked) radio item rather than stand-alone new items in themselves.  Equally there's rarely any attempt in online news to link to other stories or external sources of information.  And I suspect the word 'podcast' has never been spoken on Douglas Head. 

I think what you also need to factor in is that Butt took the press release and no doubt rooks snippets of it to suit his own agenda.  Look at the tone of the article.

So what you are seeing is probably about ten percent of what was actually provided to the newspaper with the rest twisted and mangled to make little sense.

Seems like a sensible and logical progression to more online content.   The article comes across like the writer is on the blob or something. 

1 hour ago, ballaughbiker said:

I suspected that teapot but just wanted to check it wasn't because of something like 'god said' it was a baby anytime after fertilisation.

Any one who passed O level/GCSE biology knows that it does indeed look like a baby at 12 weeks. However, if abortion is to become legal then I think that a reasonable compromise has to be made between the time most potential mothers would know they were pregnant, having reasonable time to do something about it should they desire and then at a time that the foetus could never be viable ex-utero. That certainly isn't the case with the present UK limit.

I believe 14 weeks gestation is a reasonable compromise but don't read that to mean I'm pro-abortion as I am not.

 

I’m not religious in any way. 

Having been to a number of 12 week scans I was really just trying to correlate my feelings (having experienced both great and awful news) to your 14 week view. 

I don’t have an agenda as such and you’ve explained your thought process.  Which I understand and have some agreement with. We are not miles apart at all on our views I suspect. 

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

He's going to tell you that on a 12 scan they look vaguely human and that therefore the potential mother should be forced to keep the child. Because that's what he thinks and so that is what everyone else should think too

Not really. Although I do understand the need for people like you to have people thinking for them. It’s safer. 

14 weeks?

Have you ever been for a 12 week scan?

In all fairness whilst I'm not particularly supportive of wholesale abortion there was certainly a case for you to have been the subject of one and tye world would have definitely been a better place for it.

Are the responses verified or can people simply provide multiple responses ( in a Manx Forum style)?

Not Him.

Comedy with James Franco.   Cringey amusing.

I think one of the biggest problems is the cost for regional airlines trying to operate out of sizeable airports.  

I can't see how operating out of Heathrow for example is viable.