Jump to content

Where do you see the Isle of Man in 10 years


CallMeCurious

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

Worse than "gotten" is the phrase "Can I get", when asking for, say, a drink at the bar, some goods from behind the counter, etc....

NO, You can't get them..... the staff member has to get them for you... idiot.

What is even worse than that is the increasing use of “ I seen that” not “ I saw that” or “ I have seen that”

Seems very prevalent amongst the youngsters  these days 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roxanne said:

My feelings entirely. It makes good grammatical sense. And yet, it grates on many of us of a certain generation. For me it came from my father who, years after the war held a grudge about all things American. He never got over them coming over and stealing all the women. We weren’t allowed to ever watch an American film in our house, unless it was Disney in which case it passed his mysterious muster. The use of ‘gotten’ is increasing here, especially amongst the young and eventually it will become common parlance, just as the ‘like’ and the ‘it’s super easy’ and ‘I’m just going to go ahead and…’.

Despite my open, friendly and non judgemental nature :) it bloody grates on me too! 

They fuck us up our mums and dads. 😂

They were only larkin’ about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, monasqueen said:

Worse than "gotten" is the phrase "Can I get", when asking for, say, a drink at the bar, some goods from behind the counter, etc....

NO, You can't get them..... the staff member has to get them for you... idiot.

The proper phrase should be "may I please have...". 

Whatever happened to manners? They cost nothing, but pay dividends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, woolley said:

I always think it's a pity that we abandoned "gotten" whereas our American cousins sensibly retained it. It's a perfectly good old English past participle of "get".

I've heard a few times that American English is actually closer to Old English than our own modern English English. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, monasqueen said:

Worse than "gotten" is the phrase "Can I get", when asking for, say, a drink at the bar, some goods from behind the counter, etc....

NO, You can't get them..... the staff member has to get them for you... idiot.

I’m not sure that’s so bad. You are “getting” your drink or whatever, even though somebody else has to reach for it. Especially if you finish the sentence with a “please”

There is also an implied element of politeness in asking “ can I “ rather than saying “get  me a f—-ing drink”

Its a minefield😬

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the opposite tack to my affinity with "gotten" is my antipathy to adding "with" to the verb "meet". On this side of the pond we used to meet people, but increasingly, it seems, we meet WITH them like they do in the U S of A. It's a tautology that jars with me every time it's uttered.

Justification for being pro "gotten" but anti "meet with" is that in the former case the American is logical, but in the latter it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, monasqueen said:

Worse than "gotten" is the phrase "Can I get", when asking for, say, a drink at the bar, some goods from behind the counter, etc....

NO, You can't get them..... the staff member has to get them for you... idiot.

Gggrrrrrr. People who say ‘can I get’ vex me mightily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, woolley said:

Taking the opposite tack to my affinity with "gotten" is my antipathy to adding "with" to the verb "meet". On this side of the pond we used to meet people, but increasingly, it seems, we meet WITH them like they do in the U S of A. It's a tautology that jars with me every time it's uttered.

Is there not a slight difference between examples here?  "Meet with" may imply there is a certain degree of prior arrangement involved; "meet" on its own allows the encounter to be accidental.

(Not saying this is how people use it, mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Is there not a slight difference between examples here?  "Meet with" may imply there is a certain degree of prior arrangement involved; "meet" on its own allows the encounter to be accidental.

(Not saying this is how people use it, mind).

I'm struggling to see any context in which "with" is required after "meet" or "met". Perhaps, at a stretch, something could be said to meet (with) a specification, but even here omitting it doesn't lose the meaning.

Maybe the nuance you suggest has acquired a little traction by osmosis, but not very much that I can see. "I've arranged to meet the Chief Minister." stands alone without need for further qualification by "with", although such statements are now invariably so encumbered.

Years ago you would never hear "meet/met with" at all except on American TV/movies. Now it's highly unusual to hear "meet/met" unsupported by "with" in any circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2023 at 6:49 PM, 0bserver said:

The island would be wise to start preparing for the next Labour Government. 2024 is creeping closer and the prospects of the Conservatives winning a majority appear slim. 

VAT 'renegotiation' anyone?

No. The Labour Party has been suitably Torified once more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2023 at 3:58 PM, Blade Runner said:

I say this with no animosity toward the place I used to call home.

It is in a very bad place, despite the Labour gov in the UK trying to make you pay your own way with the VAT renegotiation 2008/9?, the VAT take has, from what I can see in the Pink Book crept back up to silly amounts when you try and balance the actual spend on the island against how much VAT it gets back.

It is quite clear that The Tories will not win the next UK election and therefore this island will be subject to serious scrutiny again and likely have its VAT take at least halved (Like last time)  - Which is what I can work out on the back of a fag packet.

The island only exists tax wise because it suits the "City" and unfortunately the Labour lot don't like to see blatant tax avoidance/ evasion (Cant remember which of these are so called "legal")

The island is screwed again, but much more than in 2008/9 but this time you have blown your overpayment of VAT on CS and PS people and taking on a huge public sector workforce.

At least last time, you were found out, you had blown it on infrastructure............................... LOOK AT THE FIGURES, LAST TIME there was a cut in VAT payments he island had approx. 38% less public sector employees, Hell the Cabinet Office did not even exist then..................

I cant see a good outcome in a couple of years

If you own a home, sell it ASAP and rent if you are into BDSM

As others have said, this is getting a bit silly now. Where did you move to by the way? Is it really so bad that you are still fixated with the Isle of Man? You used to be a calm and considered poster, so the move doesn't seem to have enhanced your good humour.

You appreciate that the tax regime in the offshores exists only because of the City. You have also noticed that the VAT take has increased again over the years. You have failed to join the rest of the dots that should tell you why that is.

It is entirely in the UK's interest for the Island to prosper. International finance is the jewel in the crown of the UK economy and no incoming government will want to rock that boat with the jurisdictions that are its satellites. The senior civil service in London will soon put them wise if they have alternative views. The Labour Party as currently presented will not be a problem. Corbyn and co might have been, and that's why they couldn't be allowed anywhere near power.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, woolley said:

The Labour Party as currently presented will not be a problem. Corbyn and co might have been, and that's why they couldn't be allowed anywhere near power.

Was the Labour Party that implemented the 2008/9 cut not a "Torified" version of the Party as well though?

And the UK finances are in a much worse state now than they were then, it would be unwise to rule out any review of UK "philanthrophy" towards the Island if any UK taxpayer-respectful administration takes control. The Johnson era Conservative party is/was essentially corrupt (IMHO), Johnson wasn't made leader for his morals and Zahawi is proof enough of that.

Any new administration may not be so "accommodating" towards the Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...