notwell

The regeneration looks fine there.

Speaking of people who've been drinking

Some people's reactions sober are shocking. And that's before you get on to the dope heads and people drugged up on medication. I don't agree with a zero limit.

That isn't true. If that was the case the Hawthorn wouldn't be still very successfully running after ten plus years. The only way the Liverpool Arms is viable is as a very decent food place. People have to want to go there. Clearly that isn't the case and that is why they are closing.

What's that got to do with it?

What a twisted opinion that is then.

Not really.

I think there are some rational arguments against abortion and I have no religious interest at all. That said, it's possibly harder to make a rational argument for the stance in the IOM to vary so much from the UK.

Is it only people with religious beliefs that are not in favour of abortions then?

I said "I suspect ". I know about as much as you. But history also shows response rates are poor on most if not all consultations. There's about 70000 potential respondents and I doubt the response rate will be over about 0.01% .

Not many I suspect. Like usual.

HMRC had the scheme registered on their own DOTAS register. i.e they knew about it and it was 100% within their rules. Just because they changed the rules doesn't give them a free reign to go after people who were actually perfectly legally within the rules. It's a bit like changing dividends to being subject to NI. If they did that they would not be able to go back infinitely and reclaimed NI on dividends paid to everyone around the country who were operating within the framework and rules provided prior to the change. Those clients are quite possibly as well to bin and ignore those APN's as they are largely sent out as simply a scare tactic. I don't really see how anyone will be able to bring a claim against AML. They've not done anything wrong. HMRC are really a bunch of charlatans in this respect IMHO.

Er.....but it is OK really Roger. In fact it was so OK that HMRC knew about it and were fine about it until, well, they decided they wouldn't be fine about it. The comforting thing here is that Barrowman has the clout to fight them. Which won't go down well. The rules are there. If schemes meet the rules then it's hard to have sympathy for HMRC when they start crying about people taking advantage of those rules.

Why wouldn't they?

To be fair they have probably every right to.

Eh?

To be fair they have a point which the judge clearly agrees with Neil

I see there is a head line in the paper about a major court victory for the Irvings. Has anyone read about it? Could be huge implications for someone.

Why did Phil Gawne pay for it personally?

To be fair men only really care how a set of knockers look and on that point Ultimo tends to be ok.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Anyone would think it isn't immediately obvious

I don't see any negatives to her being here. (although i'm sure someone will find one) I've seen worse. Tarne would spank his monkey over her i'm sure.

Why?

Unless she was in a bed in the Rovers it's unlikely. She's been here a while. Old news. Tidy enough too.

I think old isle of Man pictures in general are interesting. As a northerner old Rhumsaa in particular