Middle

[quilp]

37 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Should completely leave GPs out of it. It's unfair. 

Definitely. They're not the most informed of people when it comes to many drugs, including the side-effects and contraindications of the compounds and elixirs they prescribe. Imo, once qualified after a couple of years, there's a few lazy types who'll never read another medical paper, in depth, ever again. Careless prescribing creates more addicts and kills some patients every year. 

[Stu Peters]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

Jesus wept. You are basing your ideas on what people moaned about on a phone is show. A show which you have admitted on here in the past that you did no research for or know what the topic was once your hours were cut and became a freelancer. I would have thought just out of personal pride and natural curiosity let alone not wishing to sound like an ill informed ignoramus anybody wanting to host such a show would insist on doing at least some very basic research first.

Your apparent lack of wishing to be informed or learn about matters is one of the reason's I think you are totally unsuited to being an MHK.  I don't want an MHK who basically says "I think I agree with that" and does not think anymore about it if it fits in with his world view. 

Your bile is palpable. If hundreds of people over some 18 years tell you the SPC fares are what is limiting tourism, is it not worth at least testing that premise - and for no real cost? My idea would at least provide a great marketing opportunity. These were genuine comments from a wide range of people, so I didn't need to research anything (and often wouldn't have known what to research beforehand). I know SPC offers deals (and I think the fares are cheap enough) but if you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result, you're delusional.

[Lost Login]

On 9/2/2021 at 9:20 AM, Stu Peters said:

Sorry chaps, but I'm having to recuse myself from posting for fun until 24/9.

Well that post has stood the test of time!

[ManxTaxPayer]

One assumes those posts were not for fun but for serious electioneering reasons. 

[FatRoundMiddle]

19 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Well that post has stood the test of time!

It's just what he does to duck and hide for a bit like the coward he is.

On 6/26/2021 at 4:58 PM, Stu Peters said:

I've decided as policy not to become entangled in a flame war on FB or MF or post lengthy manifesto points. 

 

[pongo]

37 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

These were genuine comments from a wide range of people

A wide range of the sort of people who would ever call an old-fashioned local radio phone-in programme during the working day.

So, in reality, not a wide range of people at all

[Ramseyboi]

Anyone else got wine in for the studio one broadcast at 7:30?

I reckon it is going to be epic with at least one meme circulating by the morning.

[ManxTaxPayer]

14 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

Anyone else got wine in for the studio one broadcast at 7:30?

You sound like the sort of person who would  call an old-fashioned local radio phone-in programme during the working day.

[The Voice of Reason]

21 hours ago, Chie said:

 

For those who worry about the legalisation. We could do it in such a way that it suits those who are for cannabis and those who would rather avoid it. So, legal within certain approved areas. Decriminalised, can carry but smoking it banned in most public spaces. So, you can smoke it inside of a designated cafe, outlet or inside your own home. 

Perhaps we could start with being able to smoke regular tobacco inside of a designated cafe or outlet.

This could well boost the tourist industry.

[finlo]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Perhaps we could start with being able to smoke regular tobacco inside of a designated cafe or outlet.

This could well boost the tourist industry.

The smoking ban was the only useful thing the government has ever done even if it was copying what everyone else was doing!

[The Voice of Reason]

54 minutes ago, finlo said:

The smoking ban was the only useful thing the government has ever done even if it was copying what everyone else was doing!

Nonsense.

Surely it is within the wherewithal to create non smoking and smoking areas within pubs, clubs etc given clean air technology or designate smoking and non smoking pubs

In the short time between the UK ban and IOM ban coming in I spoke to some visitors who said it was a breath of fresh air being allowed again to smoke in pubs.

I myself used to enjoy popping into the pub after work to enjoy a pint and a cigarette or two. But being forced to stand on the steps or the doorway made it such an unpleasant experience that I gave up smoking.

This is the same for many others and thus the Government has lost out both on alcohol and tobacco duties. Despite all those non smokers who said they would flock back to the pubs once a smoking ban was introduced ( lying bastards)

 

[TheTeapot]

As someone who enjoys the occasional pure tobacco cigarette I would be wholly opposed to any attempt to bring back a form of indoor smoking.

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Nonsense.

Surely it is within the wherewithal to create non smoking and smoking areas within pubs, clubs etc given clean air technology or designate smoking and non smoking pubs

In the short time between the UK ban and IOM ban coming in I spoke to some visitors who said it was a breath of fresh air being allowed again to smoke in pubs.

I myself used to enjoy popping into the pub after work to enjoy a pint and a cigarette or two. But being forced to stand on the steps or the doorway made it such an unpleasant experience that I gave up smoking.

This is the same for many others and thus the Government has lost out both on alcohol and tobacco duties. Despite all those non smokers who said they would flock back to the pubs once a smoking ban was introduced ( lying bastards)

 

At least you saw sense in ditching the filthy habit!

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, finlo said:

At least you saw sense in ditching the filthy habit!

Well no, I don’t see it as a filthy habit. 

I used to enjoy smoking ( as people do, that’s why they do it) and I miss it.

I do appreciate some people may find the smoke irritating. That is why I would advocate coming to some sort of accommodation rather than an outright ban in public premises.

[Lost Login]

5 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Your bile is palpable. If hundreds of people over some 18 years tell you the SPC fares are what is limiting tourism, is it not worth at least testing that premise - and for no real cost? My idea would at least provide a great marketing opportunity. These were genuine comments from a wide range of people, so I didn't need to research anything (and often wouldn't have known what to research beforehand). I know SPC offers deals (and I think the fares are cheap enough) but if you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result, you're delusional.

You were host of a day time programme that until it changed its name was known locally as the “moanin line” where the people who rang up where from a reasonable narrow demographic, generally people who rang when they thought they had something to moan about and often it was the same rotating group of contributors. Hardly a group on which to hang your hat and base a policy without some basic research.

Would you base a policy on abortion on the contributors to a phone in, which may well be dominated by one or more pressure groups on either side of the argument?

I am sure on a phone in you could get plenty of contributors who will genuinely believe that Covid 19 is just flu or the vaccine makes you magnetic. Would you test that premise just because you got people questioning it?

Yes you may be delusional if you expect a different results from doing the same thing, but equally you don’t just change things purely in the hope it might do better especially if you have already tried and have the data on which to base a decision or there is a potential substantial downside.