Anyone Want To Have A Go At The Economist Magazine?

[Chinahand]

The Economist Magazine's The World in 2008 has this little factoid on p34

 

2008 in Brief

The Isle of Man belatedly follows its British master on March 30th by banning smoking in enclosed public places.

 

Spot the mistake - letters to the Editor will be accepted etc.

 

Triviality aside - and the de facto, if not de jure truth of the remarks [ducks] - its probably worth some politician making a fuss and offering one of their hacks a freebie "to understand better the Island's unique .... blah blah blah" you know the normal screed - the Economist is widely read and getting some positive coverage from them would be a good idea - which of our dear leaders up Tynwald should be putting pen to paper do you think?

[Rhumsaa]

Not a bad idea to be doing that sort of thing before we get a cheap dig at us from a publication.

 

Slightly off topic the delayed action of the smoking ban makes my blood boil - I'd have rathered we didn't put the ban in at all and gain publicity that way than this half assed approach a year late - it looks exactly like we're some backward nation a bit slow on the uptake of what the UK is up to

[VinnieK]

Triviality aside - and the de facto, if not de jure truth of the remarks [ducks] - its probably worth some politician making a fuss and offering one of their hacks a freebie "to understand better the Island's unique .... blah blah blah" you know the normal screed - the Economist is widely read and getting some positive coverage from them would be a good idea

 

I'm not sure such a strategy would work with the Economist (or that their correspondants can be described as hacks). Typically they're very proud of their independence (one reason why all contributors to the paper tend to be anonymous) and lack of succeptibility to promotional jaunts. Secondly, unlike a regular newspaper, a columnist can't just reel off a piece about this topic or that as they see fit,. If the Island features in their pages it's usually only as an aside, or as part of a larger piece on, say, the insurance industry, tax issues, or constitutional relations between the U.K. and crown dependencies. In the latter case, these tend to be written by people with a significant amount of expertise and knowledge about that particular area, so it's a lot harder for them to be swayed or even told something they don't already know for themselves by a trip to the place in question.

[oogie boogie]

if we'd brought the smoking ban in when ingurland did, H&B would've panicked and shut half the pubs on the island down, and raised beer to £10 a pint, to make up for their lack of business.

[Mr. Sausages]

Slightly off topic the delayed action of the smoking ban makes my blood boil - I'd have rathered we didn't put the ban in at all and gain publicity that way than this half assed approach a year late - it looks exactly like we're some backward nation a bit slow on the uptake of what the UK is up to

 

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that by doing things a bit later than the UK we get a chance to learn from their mistakes. I think it just depends what mood I'm in as to which one I think. And how smelly my clothes are the next day.

[monitor]

if we'd brought the smoking ban in when ingurland did, H&B would've panicked and shut half the pubs on the island down, and raised beer to £10 a pint, to make up for their lack of business.

 

Is this the work of a crystal ball or are you a brewery director in disguise? oh dear!

[manxman2004]

Quote Mr Sausages "That's one way of looking at it. Another is that by doing things a bit later than the UK we get a chance to learn from their mistakes. "

 

Manx Government......learning from others mistakes?????

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Don't make me laugh

[Pat Ayres]

It's more a case of

"Right lads, it's been working fine in England for a year now, what spin can we put on it to make it 'Manky'?"

[TerryMcCann]

I'm not particularly concerned by the story.

 

Does anyone really think the smoking ban would be coming in if the UK hadn't brought it in first?

[cheesemonster2005]

Yes the island would have still introduced it. Why do we always look towards the UK to decide what to do? We have a smaller and richer neighbour to the west also - Ireland. They introduced their anti-smoking leglislation many years ago and that's where the MHKs should have gone to for advice.

[Saltire]

Yes the island would have still introduced it. Why do we always look towards the UK to decide what to do? We have a smaller and richer neighbour to the west also - Ireland. They introduced their anti-smoking leglislation many years ago and that's where the MHKs should have gone to for advice.

 

Don't really see what difference it makes if all the smoking bans were brought in at the one time or not. The whole of the UK didn't bring in the smoking ban at once

 

Scotland introduced it in March 2006

Wales was 2nd April 2007

N.Ireland was 30th April 2007

England in July 2007

[triskelion]

In agreement with cheesemonster, the Island would have introduced a smoking ban anyway, even if one hadn't been brought in in England and Wales. He rightly points out the Ireland actually introduced a smoking ban for all enclosed spaces sometime ago, and it is important to remember that Scotland introduced a similar ban before the rest of the UK also.

 

Even in the case of Ireland, however, it was the first country in the World to actually bring in such a ban, and that was only in March 2004. So, in this respect at least, the IoM is not exactly miles behind the times. Also remember that bars, pubs and eateries are effectively the last remaining enclosed spaces you can smoke anyway, barring homes. Smoking has long been prohibited in Government owned buildings, shops, offices, other commercial properties, public transport, taxis etc.

 

Going through the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_bans_by_country), it is interesting to see some other countries' policies, such as how Belgium won't be banning smoking in schools until next September.

[Tea&Biscuits]

Slightyly off the topic, but I was listening to LBC radio yesterday and it seems that ministers in the UK are now thinking about banning people from smoking in their cars, this they say, is due to the high number of accidents caused by drivers distracted by lighting up and that to smoke you need to take your hand off the wheel!

 

What do you all think about that? Agree or disagree?

[Max Power]

I don't know, Britain coughs and we catch a cold!

[Stu Peters]

Slightyly off the topic, but I was listening to LBC radio yesterday and it seems that ministers in the UK are now thinking about banning people from smoking in their cars, this they say, is due to the high number of accidents caused by drivers distracted by lighting up and that to smoke you need to take your hand off the wheel!

 

What do you all think about that? Agree or disagree?

 

I'd like to see the statistics behind this gem of intolerance. Strange that the world these days is full of people who are keem to assert their rights and freedoms, and that anti-bullying (in schools, workplaces and homes) has become the latest crusade, yet smokers are being institutionally bullied and nobody thinks twice.

 

I've long held the belief that non-smokers have every right to clean air that I've not pre-filtered through a Marlboro for them, but what I do in my own car and my home (and my office if I still worked for myself) is bugger all to do with anyone but me.

 

I'd suggest more accidents are caused by husbands and wives arguing in cars - so should we should ban marriage? Or just married people driving together? How about whining kids in the back seat - ban reproduction amongst drivers?

 

Governments should salvage a modicum of honour in this and ban the sale of tobacco completelly and be done with it. Where else in society are the manufacturers and pushers rewarded and the addicts criminalised?

 

And the Economist: don't see any error there...we're a Crown Dependency and we're a year behind the UK on this.