dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 did he play it or was the requester a non owning member of the people? He did eventually. The whole damned thing too, complete with verses I've never heard before.............. Jesus. I would rather he played the Spectrum Windas ad. on a loop than listen to Vera Lynn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There are some real MR haters who post here regularly who have little sense or understanding of the way things actually work (as opposed to their dystopian view that the only thing stopping them being rich and successful is that everybody is corrupt), and it has therefore become almost folklore that MR managers are constantly looking after the interests of the Manx establishment by spiking unwelcome news stories. I have repeatedly tried to correct that, based on 15 years personal experience - the first 5 working in the newsroom anchoring Mandate. Whilst I understand that there will always be haters and about not feeding trolls, I simply refuse to stand by and let - assumedly - intelligent posters attempt to defame people who are diligent and honest and an institution owned by the people for the people. Most people know how it works Stu and you could fill these pages for years and not one of them would be convinced otherwise as you're defending the people who pay your wages. That's a total conflict of interests which totally negates anything you happen to say on the subject. Owned by the people for the people? I'm sure there's a communist government somewhere that uses that very same strap line. The alternative expression of that is "state owned" Just a plain f*****g stupid post. You really can't be serious ? It would seem to be that in the IOM there are a few hundred people who consistently defend MR from such claims, and about 30,000 who openly find the whole situation and the false justifications hilarious. It is, de facto, a state broadcaster. It is funded by the taxpayer. It could not survive in its current form without the taxpayer subsidy. Conclusively it is very clear that it's funding status 100% drives its editorial and journalistic policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There are some real MR haters who post here regularly who have little sense or understanding of the way things actually work (as opposed to their dystopian view that the only thing stopping them being rich and successful is that everybody is corrupt), and it has therefore become almost folklore that MR managers are constantly looking after the interests of the Manx establishment by spiking unwelcome news stories. I have repeatedly tried to correct that, based on 15 years personal experience - the first 5 working in the newsroom anchoring Mandate. Whilst I understand that there will always be haters and about not feeding trolls, I simply refuse to stand by and let - assumedly - intelligent posters attempt to defame people who are diligent and honest and an institution owned by the people for the people. Most people know how it works Stu and you could fill these pages for years and not one of them would be convinced otherwise as you're defending the people who pay your wages. That's a total conflict of interests which totally negates anything you happen to say on the subject. Owned by the people for the people? I'm sure there's a communist government somewhere that uses that very same strap line. The alternative expression of that is "state owned" Just a plain f*****g stupid post. You really can't be serious ? It would seem to be that in the IOM there are a few hundred people who consistently defend MR from such claims, and about 30,000 who openly find the whole situation and the false justifications hilarious. It is, de facto, a state broadcaster. It is funded by the taxpayer. It could not survive in its current form without the taxpayer subsidy. Conclusively it is very clear that it's funding status 100% drives its editorial and journalistic policy. So you would be happier if it ended up a complete shite station like 3fm or "energy". FFS are you 12 y o or something? MR is worth every penny it receives from us in my opinion and leaves a lot of other local radio stations, in the UK, in it's wake. Strange though how all the MR haters seem to listen long enough each day to know what is broadcast. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There are some real MR haters who post here regularly who have little sense or understanding of the way things actually work (as opposed to their dystopian view that the only thing stopping them being rich and successful is that everybody is corrupt), and it has therefore become almost folklore that MR managers are constantly looking after the interests of the Manx establishment by spiking unwelcome news stories. I have repeatedly tried to correct that, based on 15 years personal experience - the first 5 working in the newsroom anchoring Mandate. Whilst I understand that there will always be haters and about not feeding trolls, I simply refuse to stand by and let - assumedly - intelligent posters attempt to defame people who are diligent and honest and an institution owned by the people for the people. Most people know how it works Stu and you could fill these pages for years and not one of them would be convinced otherwise as you're defending the people who pay your wages. That's a total conflict of interests which totally negates anything you happen to say on the subject. Owned by the people for the people? I'm sure there's a communist government somewhere that uses that very same strap line. The alternative expression of that is "state owned" Just a plain f*****g stupid post. You really can't be serious ? It would seem to be that in the IOM there are a few hundred people who consistently defend MR from such claims, and about 30,000 who openly find the whole situation and the false justifications hilarious. It is, de facto, a state broadcaster. It is funded by the taxpayer. It could not survive in its current form without the taxpayer subsidy. Conclusively it is very clear that it's funding status 100% drives its editorial and journalistic policy. So you would be happier if it ended up a complete shite station like 3fm or "energy". FFS are you 12 y o or something? MR is worth every penny it receives from us in my opinion and leaves a lot of other local radio stations, in the UK, in it's wake. Strange though how all the MR haters seem to listen long enough each day to know what is broadcast. Yes if it was taken off air tomorrow I really couldn't give a toss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) There are some real MR haters who post here regularly who have little sense or understanding of the way things actually work (as opposed to their dystopian view that the only thing stopping them being rich and successful is that everybody is corrupt), and it has therefore become almost folklore that MR managers are constantly looking after the interests of the Manx establishment by spiking unwelcome news stories. I have repeatedly tried to correct that, based on 15 years personal experience - the first 5 working in the newsroom anchoring Mandate. Whilst I understand that there will always be haters and about not feeding trolls, I simply refuse to stand by and let - assumedly - intelligent posters attempt to defame people who are diligent and honest and an institution owned by the people for the people. Most people know how it works Stu and you could fill these pages for years and not one of them would be convinced otherwise as you're defending the people who pay your wages. That's a total conflict of interests which totally negates anything you happen to say on the subject. Owned by the people for the people? I'm sure there's a communist government somewhere that uses that very same strap line. The alternative expression of that is "state owned" Just a plain f*****g stupid post. You really can't be serious ? It would seem to be that in the IOM there are a few hundred people who consistently defend MR from such claims, and about 30,000 who openly find the whole situation and the false justifications hilarious. It is, de facto, a state broadcaster. It is funded by the taxpayer. It could not survive in its current form without the taxpayer subsidy. Conclusively it is very clear that it's funding status 100% drives its editorial and journalistic policy. So you would be happier if it ended up a complete shite station like 3fm or "energy". FFS are you 12 y o or something? MR is worth every penny it receives from us in my opinion and leaves a lot of other local radio stations, in the UK, in it's wake. Strange though how all the MR haters seem to listen long enough each day to know what is broadcast. Yes if it was taken off air tomorrow I really couldn't give a toss. THEN what would you moan about ? Edited March 23, 2017 by dilligaf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. I may well be a prick, but I am not a Civil Servant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. I may well be a prick, but I am not a Civil Servant If you're paid from taxpayer funds your a civil servant. It's just semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) I've no problem with MR, BUT (and this really is like a broken record) I hate the adverts and see absolutely no reason why we can't get the money from the BBC to run MR as part of the the licence fee provision - i.e. they pay double the current subvention to MR so that it runs ad free and the commercial market is left to three/energy. I think this would be a relatively simple negotiation because the BBC's current provision for the IOM is embarrassing and they know it. I'd keep something akin to the current format, but with the commercial imperative gone the music policy could be more varied and adventurous during the whole day featuring more local talent and lesser heard tracks as opposed to Alex's favourite 20 tunes all the time. Edited March 23, 2017 by woolley 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There are some real MR haters who post here regularly who have little sense or understanding of the way things actually work (as opposed to their dystopian view that the only thing stopping them being rich and successful is that everybody is corrupt), and it has therefore become almost folklore that MR managers are constantly looking after the interests of the Manx establishment by spiking unwelcome news stories. I have repeatedly tried to correct that, based on 15 years personal experience - the first 5 working in the newsroom anchoring Mandate. Whilst I understand that there will always be haters and about not feeding trolls, I simply refuse to stand by and let - assumedly - intelligent posters attempt to defame people who are diligent and honest and an institution owned by the people for the people. Most people know how it works Stu and you could fill these pages for years and not one of them would be convinced otherwise as you're defending the people who pay your wages. That's a total conflict of interests which totally negates anything you happen to say on the subject. Owned by the people for the people? I'm sure there's a communist government somewhere that uses that very same strap line. The alternative expression of that is "state owned" Just a plain f*****g stupid post. You really can't be serious ? It would seem to be that in the IOM there are a few hundred people who consistently defend MR from such claims, and about 30,000 who openly find the whole situation and the false justifications hilarious. It is, de facto, a state broadcaster. It is funded by the taxpayer. It could not survive in its current form without the taxpayer subsidy. Conclusively it is very clear that it's funding status 100% drives its editorial and journalistic policy. So you would be happier if it ended up a complete shite station like 3fm or "energy". FFS are you 12 y o or something? MR is worth every penny it receives from us in my opinion and leaves a lot of other local radio stations, in the UK, in it's wake. Strange though how all the MR haters seem to listen long enough each day to know what is broadcast. I've no problem with MR, BUT (and this really is like a broken record) I hate the adverts and see absolutely no reason why we can't get the money from the BBC to run MR as part of the the licence fee provision - i.e. they pay double the current subvention to MR so that it runs ad free and the commercial market is left to three/energy. I think this would be a relatively simple negotiation because the BBC's current provision for the IOM is embarrassing and they know it. I'd keep something akin to the current format, but with the commercial imperative gone the music policy could be more varied and adventurous during the whole day featuring more local talent and lesser heard tracks as opposed to Alex's favourite 20 tunes all the time. Totally agree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. I may well be a prick, but I am not a Civil Servant If you're paid from taxpayer funds your a civil servant. It's just semantics. Well I am self employed for one and your statement is incorrect. Those paid by government, with taxpayers money are not all Civil Servants at all. How did you get to that conclusion ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. I may well be a prick, but I am not a Civil Servant If you're paid from taxpayer funds your a civil servant. It's just semantics. Well I am self employed for one and your statement is incorrect. Those paid by government, with taxpayers money are not all Civil Servants at all. How did you get to that conclusion ? As I said. If you're paid from taxpayer funds in most people's minds your a civil servant. If you're self employed with a government agency you're either stupid, or have retired and have come back for second dibs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. I may well be a prick, but I am not a Civil Servant If you're paid from taxpayer funds your a civil servant. It's just semantics. Well I am self employed for one and your statement is incorrect. Those paid by government, with taxpayers money are not all Civil Servants at all. How did you get to that conclusion ? As I said. If you're paid from taxpayer funds in most people's minds your a civil servant. If you're self employed with a government agency you're either stupid, or have retired and have come back for second dibs. I don't know why you can't grasp the Civil Service thing. However you are totally wrong in your guesses at my employment. I work for a private employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 ...there are a few hundred people who consistently defend MR from such claims, and about 30,000 who openly find the whole situation and the false justifications hilarious. How do you know this, Jack? Or are you making things up again..? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Probably stupid civil servant pricks like you. I may well be a prick, but I am not a Civil Servant If you're paid from taxpayer funds your a civil servant. It's just semantics. Well I am self employed for one and your statement is incorrect. Those paid by government, with taxpayers money are not all Civil Servants at all. How did you get to that conclusion ? As I said. If you're paid from taxpayer funds in most people's minds your a civil servant. If you're self employed with a government agency you're either stupid, or have retired and have come back for second dibs. I don't know why you can't grasp the Civil Service thing. However you are totally wrong in your guesses at my employment. I work for a private employer. So retired from the public sector and come back for second dibs via an agency then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.