Pragmatopian

That just seems wrong to me, locking up a very old man at a highish security prison.

The IoM is too small to maintain prisons at different security levels. I doubt the marginal cost of putting him up in Jurby would be more than sending him to a lower security prison in the UK.

He knew the type of prison of accommodation available in the IoM when he committed his crimes: if he didn't want to experience it for himself then he shouldn't have done what he did.

Allowing shareholders to use company assets to finance their purchase of the shares should never have been legalised and should be phased out. Also any public service contractor or monopoly operator should be made to make full accounts disclosure in the interests of transparency.

Couldn't have put it better. It's up to the legislators to make it so.

What I fail to understand is why some posters who for whatever reason who have moved away from the Island seem to retain far more time and interest and involvement for somewhere they have left rather than where they are. It may not apply to you but it seems that some are almost clinging to an old life as they are unable to make a new life and friends where they have moved through.

 

I do not expect if people who move away from where they were brought up or lived a long time to have no interest in those places, I still look out for the news etc from such places of my own, but I feel no need to comment or try and get involved in such places that really no longer concern me directly.

Speaking personally the reason I maintain an interest in what happens on the IoM is because most of my family still live there and perhaps at some stage in my life I'll return. I don't believe its particularly objectionable for the diaspora of any country to continue to maintain an interest in (or express views on) things happening in their homeland.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Isle of Man is too small a market to sustain several competing ferry services, although I'd agree that the owners of SPCo are grossly abusing that position. I think only legislation could realistically address that. Would like to see something along those lines in the manifestos of our prospective MHKs.

There have been a glut of high-billing stories about astronomy on BBC News lately, coinciding with a meeting of the American Astronomical Society:

Image of the most distant galactic cluster ever observed

Masses of high resolution images of the night sky released into the public domain by Sloan Digital Sky Survey [Video relating to the same story]

From which I eventually landed at this awesome visualisation of some of the Sloan data produced using Mathematica (which I've never encountered before and looks like an awesome tool for amateur astronomers (among others): commercial licensing is ridiculously expensive, but they make the same software available to hobbyists at a much more modest price).

Assuming the Chinese judicial process was followed leading to a secure finding of guilt against the guy according to Chinese law what's the problem here? Somehow I doubt the UK government would make such a fuss if the United States executed a Briton who had committed a capital offence there.

For all the claims regarding the guy's mental illness I've seen no one present any hard evidence. It smacks of a desparate attempt to pressure China into granting clemency to avoid the bad PR.

4 million quid? For a roundabout? Will it be paved with gold?

For the reasons I stated earlier, I still think the timing of this was all wrong: they should have nominated him by all means, but any award should have been offered when relations were not so strained

 

Ultimately, the opinions of extremists, be they motivated by ideology, religion, or racism cannot be modified by accomodating or pandering to those opinions or to react to them with silence for fear of provoking them further - this simply demonstrates that they have the power to influence government and encourages them further.

Precisely my thoughts. There will always be some people who feel an honour is deserved and some who think someone else would have been a more deserving candidate - that is not so much the issue. Rather, it is in the discretion of those conferring honours on whoever they wish.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6769671.stm

FFS! If I were the monarch I'd change my mind and elevate him to the peerage just to piss these jokers off. While we're at it what about a dukedom for that Danish cartoonist and sovereign status over a small commonwealth nation for those guys who wrote the Jerry Springer Opera?

What devalues these awards is that they've been handed out to charity workers.

Would respectfully disagree. It is entirely proper that exceptional people who have given their time in the service of others should be recognized for their efforts.

The British system doesn't have anything akin to the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, which is exclusively for those who excel in artistic pursuits: Knighthoods, CBEs, OBEs and MBEs can honour people from any walk of life. I think this sends out a positive message that everyone has the potential to contribute.

His work has considerable merit - I don't think it's a stretch to describe him as one of the best writers of his generation. So what if he's pissed off some religious nuts? It has no bearing on whether he deserves a knighthood for services to literature.