ian rush

1) They both voted for the scheme in 2018 2) whatever the rights and wrongs of the original decision, settling at the level they did (22odd k) might stop the others under 60 who got 22 from losing their seat (cregeen, baker, peake?) from trying to tell treasury they should’ve also got the 33k the tribunal awarded

It’s another example of a capital project going through when there are probably revenue expenditures even within MNH which might not even see the light of day cos it’s simply never going to be allowed. After this capital spend there will of course be a new revenue spend. Much as I disagree withDamian Ciapelli on most things he’s right to say things like the House of Mannanan would be a much better spend. It is tired and looks shite.

Nomination for the Darwin Awards?

The policy issue here (leaving parking aside) is the town centre first element for retail built into the Strategic Plan. So white goods and individual or bulk items you typically must lump in a car can be ok in out of town. Chester Street has been abandoned. A genuine convenience goods i.e day-to-day living food and other domestic sales in that location approved by planners or the Committee or Council of Ministers would be completely contrary to policy. So, to conclude, horseshit rumour and it won’t happen.

Whatever the salary, it’s probably the last job theyll ever have so you’d be mad to take it unless you can afford never to work again. Think about the ways it can go wrong at the end… - Minister doesn’t like you or puts a condition on appointment that you’re emptied (Crookall/Black) - Overly robust or plain bad management of an employee which you can’t prove wasn’t linked to whistleblowing in the meantime while you’re in post, you’re a political football for the breadth of operational stuff usually covered by a conglomerate and have a public who seem to expect heads on a stick whenever anything goes wrong, plus a media goldfish bowl. Oh and A Minister. Taking account of all of the above you’d need to be a last job, cynical psychopath to want it

Wannenburgh is a fat useless gammon. I’d imagine his pissed offness at this is because Sporting Club doesn’t get subsidized for 1980s sportsmen taking shit to ‘self made’ small businessmen.

Leaving aside the usual diatribes about bloat and waste from Government, the seemingly paltry amount of money allocated to mental health and social care (whose service users generally tend not to be erudite voters) compared to ‘health’ is the electoral/democratic elephant in NHS resourcing. Health itself does a rationalization QA of resources / NICE approved drugs based on quality years of life from the cost of the proposed intervention so oncology might have to make case against endocrine - but is any work done on MH and social care funded under interventions as a comparator with health.?

What like our Residency Act 2001? http://legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2001/2001-0007/ResidenceAct2001.pdf On the books, ready to go. Politicians too shit scared to do anything to help the young?

Four of us including a toddler in nappies. Haven’t had a problem with fortnightly and one bin but have got space outside for four recycling boxes which get used much more. Spend more time separating stuff than I used to esp. plastic and boxes. Not a problem.

Planning officers in DEFA recommended no. Committee went against professionals recommendation. https://www.gov.im/media/1376803/planning-committee-minutes-23-may-2022.pdf Appeal against that. Inspector recommends no i.e. same as officers - Minister follows Inspector - what’s the problem? The issues for planners are generally how does it fit in. In this case because of presumption against development outside settlement boundaries it gets into detail about over-riding national need AND showing there are no more suitable alternative sites. If the applicants don’t address those adequately it shouldn’t and didn’t get allowed.

They won’t be getting paid whilst on strike, whereas they’ve been trousering full whack despite large parts of the industrial action being in breach of some of their t and c and/or coming at extra cost to taxpayers.

And therein lies the problem. Politicians ought to decide the policy and strategy, not run stuff and oversee operations. Too often blurred in the minds of the public and the politicians.

I’ve been looking at software for a start up and the idea of being so tethered to something so critical is a big thing to deal with and decide over. The money and complexity attaching to a do it all system for Manx Care - social, community, primary, acute must be crackers to have to scope out.

It’ll be an asymmetric to wind and/or direct sale to business - theirs for the pot farm or the big e-companies, data centres etc.

JWs point about his letter of engagement and disclosure advice doesn’t deal with the issue that privilege in that advice would be that of the client to waive, not his as lawyer.

What they were allowed as applicant seems in line with https://www.gov.im/media/873234/public-speaking-guidance-2022.pdf

Have a look at 18/01334/CON when the online planning site is back up

There’s a decent podcast episode on Ireland’s position here with mention of the Moffatt pipeline at about 6.20 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/inside-business-with-ciaran-hancock/id799812881?i=1000571355248

The ‘problem’ here isn’t the planners or the planning committee both of whom are constrained by the legislation and the policies either in the strategic plan or relating to registered buildings and conservation areas. The politicians can if they choose change the laws and the policies (or remove a conservation area designation) or change the criteria for what gets registered. They haven’t done so and it isn’t on the Island Plan to do so and might risk Biosphere renewal if they did. But Alf banging his fist on the table in this case about officers not disapplying law and policy for rich people after the governance / rogue officers issues in Ranson isn’t exactly setting the right tone to lead the officers on a changed path. If he and and the rest of those Ministers want to change something then make it a priority instead of something else (rather than add it’s as another priority).

How many who think this is a good idea go on about the nanny state and also think government is shit, too big and lazy? It’s Tory dog whistling singling out something that isn’t really a problem compared to some of the stuff they are responsible for.

The cost of moving the water from Sulby might be an issue as well as the actual levels.

People should perhaps reflect on a simple question to show how much of a mess the market and supply/demand is in: For how many people in this island does where you live earn more than you do going to work? By property earnings you could include both rental return and capital value increases. No right or wrong answer so to speak and all circumstances different but it’s a different angle to policy setting and addressing the difficulties.

People who don’t understand the difference between climate and weather often find it difficult to understand that an odd day’s rain in summer is not enough of a reason to allow hose pipes back in action.

I’m pleased the politicians have done this. Hopefully the shit show that is Crogga comes to nothing as well. If there was anything there don’t you think a big player would’ve been in first or taken an option from Crogga by now? As it is they’re drumming up small stakes investment and leaning on Government for extension after extension.

Collective responsibility in action here. Disagrees with a CoMin endorsed policy which evolved whilst he was there albeit in another Department. Bails when he’s put in one of the hot seats to implement said policy. A cynic might think the very limited reshuffle was to this end… Anyway it gives TC a much better chance of re-election, sniping from the sides.