Declan

I really don’t see the fuss. 
 

If you want to go the tower for a communal activity with the risks  Mitigated  to some extent - go on the organised walk  

If you want a more personal experience and are happy to manage your own risks  - go another day. 

14 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Isn't there already a glaring, say 73% 'None of the above' with such as a 27% turnout?

 

 

1. A vote for None of the Above is making an active choice not to support the candidates. 

2. It's easy for the establishment / Government to blame "apathy" and claim non-voters can't be that bothered by the direction the Island is going. 

3. RON (Re-open Nominations) would be better than "None of the Above" - because it's a vote for something (admittedly quite nebulous) rather than one against everything. 

14 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Would a 'none of the above' option actually increase turnout by very much in reality?

 

I think it will be used mostly where you support one candidate and can't abide the others. You would vote for  RON in hope for better candidates next time. 

Personally, for individual voters it would provide a better method with which to reject the status quo over a spoilt ballot or not voting. For those people it allows them to participate in democracy. 

However, apart from isolated incidents (like when a party withdraws support for candidate or a technicality with a nomination keeps a popular candidate off the ballot) I doubt it will make much of a difference to the actual outcome of individual votes. And it doesn't change the fundamental issue in the Isle of Man that no matter who you vote for, no matter who wins in individual seats, the government doesn't change.   

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

To be fair, it's more 'music that has marked by life' rather than what she thinks are the best pieces of music in the universe as she admits herself.  But as you and Declan pointed out, these lists always give the impression that they are carefully curated to give the right impression.

Like - 

"6. DIONNE WARWICK - WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW

The Motown sound was a very big influence in the civil rights movement and demonstrated that promoting peace and love can achieve much more than segregation and oppression. A way of life I am very much aligned with."

The comment and the song don't really correlate. 

38 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

The whole list seems to be chosen with (what she imagined to be) the readership in mind, surely.

Politicians on Desert Island Discs are the same. 

55 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Is “Papa don’t Preach” amongst them?

Guess the artist - "His music always reminds me to be humble for what I have and to be grateful for the people in my life who fight unseen and unspoken personal battles every day."

31 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Following in the family tradition is Sarah Maltby Douglas South MHK, daughter of Ex Minister David Cretney, who has shared with the newspapers readers her top 10 favourite tunes. Enough said. 

Pretty standard local paper space filler stuff though.
 

Local celeb picks favourite tunes, holiday destinations, walks, tv shows each week. It’s copy you don’t have to pay journalists for. 

23 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Indeed. I wasn't suggesting it invalidates the performance at all. But to suggest that scores are random does an injustice to the performer who may well have been technically correct. 

And the judge!

17 minutes ago, Anthony Ingham said:

You would think, but those days are long gone.

I wouldn't know. I did see Annie Kissack judged the poetry, and I've seen worse judges at poetry slams. 

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

I would suggest that scoring is subjective.

It is. However, it's the subjective opinion (or should be) of an expert (a skilled practioner or teacher in the field) and against set criteria of "good looks like" in that discipline. 

That doesn't invalidate the performance of the participant who deviates from the set criteria, or the audience member that enjoyed it. 

8 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

Well believe it or not, posters on here have tried to help but you appear to be beyond that

To be fair though, the solutions suggested are inferior workarounds, to a list of results by class. Not sure why Anthony Ingham ia being ao agressive.

10 minutes ago, 2112 said:

The NPM reports this morning on the length of time being taken by the islands immigration authorities dealing with visas for new employees to the island. Upto to 90 days in some cases. It’s unfortunate that new labour having to be brought in as some indeginous local people don’t wish to work, and are content to draw benefits. One thing I have noticed is for example, one local restaurant, grill and bar chain advertising for staff, both cooking and waiting on staff. 

There's 292 unemployed on the island and 837 vaccancies. Of these 24 have been unemployed for over a year.

On 5/3/2024 at 9:30 PM, Anthony Ingham said:

More positive business news.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.  I can’t imagine it’s  intended to actually turn a profit in it own right as a venue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMq_MstzPDA&ab_channel=3Wheeling

Who is this guy?

Why is everything he says a question?

Why is he asking me whether it's a good idea to open a sidecar garage(?) in the old Havana Nightclub?

Mad, bad, sad, racist Dad. 

17 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 

You cannot just wish City away and say "look what we would have won".

 

I didn't do that.

Merely pointed out your claim "it's only teams like Sevilla" that stopped us winning titles was wrong.

You've a choice mate, we can discuss football like adults or you can engage in a point by point rebuttal of what you imagine I think or what you wish I'd written, but you don't really need me for that, so I'll leave you to it. 

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

And if it wasn't for Blackburn and Arsenal then United would have won 12 league titles in a row...

These arguments are stupid though.  Blackburn and Arsenal won those titles.

Liverpool lost out to City etc but that's the way football works. 

You're doing what you always. You said "they only lost to teams like Sevilla" when it was mostly City and Real. That's all I was saying.

You make a false statement, get shown it's wrong then respond as if I was reponding to completely different point. We can't have a serious discussion because you just view find one little bit in a post and go "yeah but", irrespective of the context in the thread or the post.

17 minutes ago, keith lard said:

Not necessarily.  A lot of pitches have barriers around the pitch. 

Where? I can only think of the Bowl.

18 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

To be honest think it has something to do with problems with certain teams having supporters and the likes inside that designated area and them kicking off when decision goes against there team . Pretty sure nothing to do with Wenger etc. With restrictions on people allowed in this area Referees can have some control over it. And the relevant penalties can be applied .  

Why have a designated area in the first place? Supporters are just stood on the touchline around the pitch anyway.

29 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Another factor with Liverpool is that they really should have won more under Klopp than they did.  The fact they fell short amuses me especially when it was teams like Sevilla that were denying them trophies.

We were denied two League titles by Man City by a single point and gained more points both season than United had. A team with the resources of a petro-state and the most successful manager of the current era, who would have won 6 or 7 titles in a row but for us

We also lost two Champions League Finals to Real Madrid the most successful team in that competition.

Yes we lost to Sevilla in the Europa League in Klopp's first full season, but they're the most successfull team in that competition, and in the League Cup by Man City (second most successful in that comp apart from us).

3 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

The technical area now is a designated area , one for both teams, and only named people can officially be in there. Manager, assistant , anyone that looks after injuries and of course substitutes . Supporters are just recently now not allowed in this area . If the report is correct if the guy picked the ball up regardless of his arguments regarding another whistle etc it as Thommo says a penalty. Not sure anything that’s been said warrants the refs response though . Players in this situation normally get a very long ban so will be interesting what the ref gets. They will liaising with the English FA on this one I’m sure. 

The penalty is red herring, I just mentioned it as another bizarre event during the match. In an ideal world the ref would have been allowed to use common sense an begin with a drop ball, or suggest the taker just passes it back to the goalie. But rules is rules and there's no room for common sense.

Having a designated area at games at this level is ridiculous. Wenger's crazy rules committee will be behind it I bet. All it does is give refs one more thing fuss about.

49 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

I'm still waiting for some one, who possessing greater sporting knowledge can say what the technical area is.  Oh and some guidance on the off side rule would be appreciated.  😁  

It's the area on the side of the pitch where the manager stands. And I suppose where the subs and whoever has the magic sponge stands. I'm surprised they even need one.

Offside is where an attacking player gets an advantage over the defenders by being nearer to the goal than them.

15 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

I’d say there was more to it than just that. Maybe the player and the ref have history over the seasons. Or even in this game. 

The issue wasn't the penalty (which was in St George's favour) but with a St. G's substitute standing at the side of the pitch.

10 hours ago, manxchester said:

To my eternal shame I did this about 25 years ago when I played in uk. Ref gave a penalty, don’t see how he couldn’t to be fair. One of the bigger guys on our team had a quiet word in the penalty takers ear though and he just passed it back to our keeper in a great display of sportsmanship.

I'm surprised that didn't happen here. But some teams on the Island are a bit full of themselves.

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

For completeness, here's the relevant bit from the Upfront Footy tweet that contains a full match report (to this point) as well:

 

It's not clear why the referee didn't resume the game once he had been deterred from hitting anyone.

I imagine his impartiality might have been called into question. 

Anyway before that happened. 

The ref awarded a penalty, because an opposition player picked up the ball after hearing a whistle on the next pitch. That put St G's 2 goals up at half time. Corinthians pulled one back and were pressing for an equalizer. 

You'd be livid if you were one of the other teams fighting relegation. Geordies win a game because the ref awards a bizarre penalty, sends a substitute off for a minor thing then abandons the game because he's too busy attacking a player. 

Is there no video footage - this would be a smash on youtube?

On 5/2/2024 at 5:42 AM, Anthony Ingham said:

82| St Georges Substitute Tristan Ringham sees red for refusing to stand inside the technical area.

 

 

There's a technical area? 

17 minutes ago, Gladys said:

True, it just needs a policy decision you would have thought. 

You'd think, but, say Tynwald a pass a motion indicating support for the provision to be free in Govt buildings. 

Then a few years down the line the CS stop it, call it  a "cost saving" and it's pay rises all round!

I don't know how he managed that, but it's 69 dude!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_competitive_honours_won

To be fair to him, this started where you had the cheek "to fix" a post of mine that was specifically talking about the current situation.