Manx Radio

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

The Mail is terrible for accuracy.  Look at where they thing Carrington (Greater Manchester) is...

 

Warrington for Carrington?  Being only one letter out counts as accuracy in MailLand.

9 minutes ago, woolley said:

I love these images for the way they put a small inset to show the location of the main map in the country. Hard luck if you can't suss it without that contextual assistance.

There's actually a good reason for it (apart from general English geographical illiteracy) less than 40% of mailonline's traffic actually comes from the UK.

[woolley]

I know that it's popular around the world, but are the foreign readers really interested in the location of the map within the map? I wouldn't think that they are using it to brush up on their geographical knowledge of Blighty.

[Roger Mexico]

35 minutes ago, woolley said:

I know that it's popular around the world, but are the foreign readers really interested in the location of the map within the map? I wouldn't think that they are using it to brush up on their geographical knowledge of Blighty.

I presume most of them are interested in the manufactured doings of the inhabitants of the Sidebar of Shame, rather than the suburbs of Manchester.   But presumably that's part of the reason for it - along with the old tabloid saying about never overestimating the intelligence of the British public.

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Warrington for Carrington?  Being only one letter out counts as accuracy in MailLand.

The rave was in Carrington.  Warrington is definitely not Greater Manchester either.

[Roger Mexico]

18 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The rave was in Carrington.  Warrington is definitely not Greater Manchester either.

Oh I know, but the Mail's map had Carrington in the position of Warrington (roughly), when it's actually about nine miles away.

[manxman1980]

Looks more like Widnes to me but I agree I think Warrington was what they have mixed up with Carrington. 

 

[gettafa]

Just listening to Manx Radio this morning,. It's not necessarily an MR thing, but when were schoolchildren started being called students. It were pupils in my day.

Do teachers get paid more/better conditions for teaching 'students' rather than 'pupils'?  It's the only reason I can think.

[hissingsid]

The Examiner is saying a pressure group has been formed supporting Stu Peters, anyone any idea where ?    Also just how long is it going take for those who are supposedly investigating this affair ?    Ridiculous amount of time already.

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

 Also just how long is it going take for those who are supposedly investigating this affair ?    Ridiculous amount of time already.

It may be that the actual investigation has been completed, the difficulty will be how to present the results because, either way, it will trigger a highly charged debate. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, given the binary nature of BLM.  

[Shake me up Judy]

They'll want to wait until everyone has forgotten about it. Then release it late on a Friday, at the end of the weekly news cycle. It'll all be lofty phrases and cliches about the good of the station, their commitment to equality, broad listenership, public service broadcasting, values and trust, stakeholder ownership, compatibility...blah, blah, blah. 

I really feel for Stu. He's done nothing wrong. I hope the pressure group posts something up on here. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

29 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It may be that the actual investigation has been completed, the difficulty will be how to present the results because, either way, it will trigger a highly charged debate. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, given the binary nature of BLM.  

How it'll unfold is that Stu won't be back on Manx Radio and if he has anything about him he will sue Manx Radio.

Meanwhile that loon Jordan will probably take his slot.

[gettafa]

No.

[TheTeapot]

40 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

How it'll unfold is that Stu won't be back on Manx Radio and if he has anything about him he will sue Manx Radio.

Meanwhile that loon Jordan will probably take his slot.

He's not employed by them though is he? On as a subcontractor I thought? Maybe there is a clause in the contract along the lines of 'contract can be terminated due to public disgust'.

 

[Roger Mexico]

11 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

He's not employed by them though is he? On as a subcontractor I thought? Maybe there is a clause in the contract along the lines of 'contract can be terminated due to public disgust'.

All the presenters are freelancers, except those such as Brindley who also have some sort of staff job.  That's been the way for nearly a decade now (I remember Stu complaining a bit about it On Here) and it was done as one of those classic Manx 'money saving' exercises which cost the taxpayer a lot more, but somehow justified those in charge to the terminally innumerate.  As usual with Manx Radio, the only place any light is shone on this is the Myers Report, though that is now nearly seven years old:

Quote

[...] This competition in the market and pressure on revenues meant Manx Radio has had to change its cost base. While it was reported that staff numbers decreased, the reality is personnel simply moved from a staff position to a freelance role with very little change to the overall number. A classic case of smoke and mirrors!

However, it has not been totally without merit. The move in this direction has delivered real cost savings through a reduction in National Insurance and staff pension payments for example, and, as freelancers are generally on a fixed term contact, the company has certainty of costs. Having said that, it should be pointed out freelancers must be properly and legally contracted to ensure the company has the appropriate protection.

While the IoM tax authorities are independent of the UK, it is worth noting that the UK has taken a much tougher stance on this area over recent years. The shareholder and the Radio board may want to satisfy itself on this particular point because if the main source of income for a freelancer comes from their duties at Manx Radio, it could be argued that the individual is not a freelancer at all, and instead they are an ‘employee’ of Manx Radio. If this is successfully argued, the company may have a significant liability on National Insurance payments alone. In addition, free-lancers may be able to claim staff status and the associated protection this provides.

(Some para breaks added for clarity).  Of course the UK crackdown on 'freelancer' status being exploited by employers has only intensified since 2013.  With media presenters the legal precedents are mixed and I'm not sure they would apply here, including because of Stu's age and other business activities.  But it could certainly be argued by Stu that he was employed exclusively enough for a case to be considered.  In practice IOM HMRC (overseen by the Treasury) are not going to want to get involved in a case which exposes that Manx Radio (overseen by the Treasury) broke the rules, so I could see the usual process of stuffing everyone's mouths with taxpayers' money happening. 

But the bigger risk for Stu would be what his freelance contract says.  You would expect that, like many employee contracts, it would have some 'bringing the company into disrepute' clause that could be used to terminate the contract without notice.  This is why he was stupid to talk to the Mail, which would be seen as compounding that.

I do hope Stu's contract isn't terminated, but they may have legal grounds if they want to.  Of course that assumes that the contract exists, is up to date and is competently worded - none of which, experience tells us, can be assumed when there is Manx Government involvement.

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

All the presenters are freelancers, except those such as Brindley who also have some sort of staff job.  That's been the way for nearly a decade now (I remember Stu complaining a bit about it On Here) and it was done as one of those classic Manx 'money saving' exercises which cost the taxpayer a lot more, but somehow justified those in charge to the terminally innumerate.  As usual with Manx Radio, the only place any light is shone on this is the Myers Report, though that is now nearly seven years old:

(Some para breaks added for clarity).  Of course the UK crackdown on 'freelancer' status being exploited by employers has only intensified since 2013.  With media presenters the legal precedents are mixed and I'm not sure they would apply here, including because of Stu's age and other business activities.  But it could certainly be argued by Stu that he was employed exclusively enough for a case to be considered.  In practice IOM HMRC (overseen by the Treasury) are not going to want to get involved in a case which exposes that Manx Radio (overseen by the Treasury) broke the rules, so I could see the usual process of stuffing everyone's mouths with taxpayers' money happening. 

But the bigger risk for Stu would be what his freelance contract says.  You would expect that, like many employee contracts, it would have some 'bringing the company into disrepute' clause that could be used to terminate the contract without notice.  This is why he was stupid to talk to the Mail, which would be seen as compounding that.

I do hope Stu's contract isn't terminated, but they may have legal grounds if they want to.  Of course that assumes that the contract exists, is up to date and is competently worded - none of which, experience tells us, can be assumed when there is Manx Government involvement.

I don't think age can be taken into consideration any more under equality legislation.