Andy Onchan

As I've said before... Less is more. He/they have learned nothing.

No other explanation, Roger.

He's a jack of some trades and absolutely master of none. You'd think that if you're going to announce and pronounce in great detail and length on a matter that involves the death of someone in highly unusual circumstances that a double check on the facts would be in order? No matter if you think that no harm has been done I find this particular gaff quite astounding, to be honest.

That's going to be a waste of time.

In his head more like.

Which platform are they using, Vimeo, YouTube or some other??

Really?

The first MR post didn't include the audio clip but did report the indemnity issue. After that they included the audio clip but the indemnity issue had been removed. Subsequent to both of the above the indemnity issue is now back with the audio clip. They got there eventually... but probably still an unnecessary subject to discuss at this time.

It's in the audio link on MR website. And I notice that MR have now added the bit about the Crown Indemnity issue.

I see that MR have now inserted the audio from the sitting and he was responding to a question from Ms. Edge. That in itself was probably not necessary but could have been dealt with out of court at this stage... unless Ms. Edge required the answer on behalf of a constituent involved in the case? If not, then it would seem a little crass and insensitive to force the issue. No doubt she'll be along at some point to inform us why the question was necessary.

I see that the comment about the Crown Indemnity has now been removed from MR report. Which doesn't surprise me because when I read it I thought how fucking insensitive it was to even mention it!

Most likely political embarrassment as you suggest. But what if RG refuses? You can't force someone into a nondisclosure agreement. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen but it would certainly put her in the driving seat and in a better position to get what she wants, a public apology as I understand. She's not looking for monetary gain per se but a recognition that they had done the dirty on her by using proprietary intellectual property and others in DHSC employ from claiming her work for themselves. Just a thought.

Why?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billspringer/2021/04/13/superyacht-builder-of-sailing-yacht-a-files-for-bankruptcy/

YEs the licence issue is still not resolved: https://simpleflying.com/flybe-2-license-revoked/

Don't forget to take a Ramsey Bakery thick slice or a bag of marshmallows..... and a beer of course!

Oh I say....steady on

+1. The framework needs to be rewritten in light of the vaccination stats. Isolation should only be for those testing positive on arrival and until they get a negative result. It's absolutely bonkers, now, to expect families to isolate for the duration of their stay, albeit 14 or 21 days. If any of them are like our family, they are all in full time employment and really won't want to spend their holiday time cooped up if they don't pose a significant risk to anyone else.

Well, that's interesting insomuch as I read a Google syndicated article that some countries are considering not accepting vaccines if the efficacy is below a certain level in a certain age group. When I read that I thought that could be a tricky one to administer at a border crossing without knowing the details of the vaccine. I doubt I'll find that article now but I'll try.

I think the type and batch number etc is going to be the crucial bit for travel purposes I guess.

What vaccination data, exactly?

Did it suit you, sir?

Yes, the assumption that bigger is better is bollocks. The bigger the building, the bigger the operation, the more expensive it will be to run.

I wouldn't even call it adventurous or daring... to me it's a typical late-20th century design, loads of them around in UK seaside resorts. I'm suggesting that replacing a like-for-like modern structure with characteristics to the original on a similar footprint would actually make it more marketable for a family/small tenancy to operate out of.

I can see both points of view. However, the proposed replacement is/was, I think, not in keeping with other buildings at that level and was designed to be all-things-to-all-men. The reason why it was called the Cosy Nook is/was obvious. The alternative is/would be the absolute opposite and couldn't possibly be called that again unless the dimensions were the same as the original. If there is to be a new building then why can't it be built on the same footprint with all the same or very similar features incorporated into a modern build; low ceiling with beams, outside shell of manx stone, fireplace/burner etc. Atmos makes a place like the Cosy Nook. The alternative would 110% functional/utilitarian. Absolutely no atmos. I can't help thinking that the architects have been given an easy assignment. Make them work for their money. Not everything that is modern needs to look modern or indeed bigger. The challenge, I would suggest, is to try and retain some sort authentic feel about the place.