Cassie2 Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) How can Douglas Councillors justify demanding that the very many ratepayers whose income after tax has not gone up by 8.76% have to pay such an increase. And how come you could not even match Ramsey's 4.9%. The island's second largest town with its own major challenging problems. Effectively almost 9% has been imposed by the Councillors on the DBC's paymasters - the ratepayers. Instead, it is obvious to everyone except DBC that you should have been carrying out your duties properly and cutting the bloated nonsense that the DBC empire has grown to become. There are few votes in the Douglas Borough empire. But there are many, many ratepayers and votes in Douglas as a whole. We, The People, shall remember you. Edited February 1, 2023 by Cassie2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 Whats going on with the dodgy property stuff from twitter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 24 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Exactly I’m aware of the fact that the most allegedly transparent authority on the IOM does not publish its FOIs so I’m reasonably suspect of the way this has been reported date-wise. If they were open and honest they’d have just published the FOI and we could have made our own mind up on the dates from the facts. Not be presented with a carefully scripted statement to IOM Newspapers. Oh come on! No one in history has ever alleged that Douglas is transparent about anything. It's difficult to determine who the Town Clerk is from their website, never mind anyone else. There are Mafia clans with a greater reputation for openness. The individual who put in the FoI request presumably passed the info to the papers (if the papers didn't put it in themselves). They managed to mangle it a fair bit in rewriting it, but that's what journalists do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: 45 was a purely illustrative number but no it reports: 10 reports during the months of July and April 2022. Only 6 reports were sent to the council in September and 9 in October. May and June had a combined total of 12 reports So that’s 37. Where did you get your January and February and August figures from? The dates are very carefully selected without being joined up. There are no figures for jan, feb and August. I read it as April - 10 May and June - 12 July - 10 September - 6 October - 9 So 47. Leaving the remaining 37 split over the other 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Yes totally agree that’s where I was getting to. FOI receiver tipped off IOM Newspapers. DBC bullshitted IOM newspapers. More likely that IOM newspapers made the FOI, and wouldn’t have reported it gleefully if there had actually been the slightest hint of an increase due to the reduced collections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: But this is where I’m getting to on deliberately contrived number reporting. “10 reports during the months of July and April 2022” Can be read either way it’s deliberately obtuse and placed in the earlier part of the year. It’s either 5 in each or ten in each. It’s deliberately contrived language. You might be right, but actually nobody really cares and the numbers are so small that they are pretty much statistically irrelevant anyway. One person moving house and dumping on three separate nights would massively skew the figures. So, in summary, nobody cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 23 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Nothing. Turned out to be BS then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGarrison Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 Just now, Asthehills said: So, in summary, nobody cares But didn’t you just get banned for a month for caring so much about DBCs lies. Has Albert now put you through the re-education programme so you can keep posting here? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 1 minute ago, MrGarrison said: But didn’t you just get banned for a month for caring so much about DBCs lies. Has Albert now put you through the re-education programme so you can keep posting here? All I did was comment that some interesting posts had vanished. I have no issue with fortnightly bin collections and managed fine for years with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGarrison Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 Just now, Asthehills said: I have no issue with fortnightly bin collections and managed fine for years with them. I’m sure Albert (and Frank) will be reassured by that and you may carry on posting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 21 minutes ago, Asthehills said: All I did was comment that some interesting posts had vanished. I have no issue with fortnightly bin collections and managed fine for years with them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 29 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: But this is where I’m getting to on deliberately contrived number reporting. It's IOM Newspapers, they're not literate enough to deliberately contrive anything. Most of their articles are word soup, this isn't any different. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BriT Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 What seems to be fairly clear now looking at the rate increases announced Island wide is that waste disposal fees (ie, gate fees at the EFW) seem to be the main driver in all the rate rises. Which makes it more surprising that instead of admitting this like almost everyone else DBC went down the route of making up a fake recycling initiative the net result of which seems to have been an increase of nearly 9% regardless and a resultant loss in service provision. It feels that it’s all more to do with some claiming to have pretend green credentials than anything else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 How much is the golf course being subsidized by ratepayers this year? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 6 minutes ago, Banker said: How much is the golf course being subsidized by ratepayers this year? Don't touch Pully golf course. 💪 I say so as a Castletown ratepayer and regular user. 6 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.