Jarndyce Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 39 minutes ago, The Phantom said: 1 hour ago, Declan said: Kitty's hate the sea. Catfish? Although admittedly they are generally freshwater Also - they are fish, not cats… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 34 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: Also - they are fish, not cats… What about a fishing cat? Were two at the wildlife park until recently. https://gef.im/news/environment/bye-bye-benny-44339/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 16 hours ago, Max Power said: We have the Civil Defence! Defend the Civil (service) surely. Like Alf's personal Brownshirts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 12 minutes ago, The Phantom said: What about a fishing cat? Once again, the importance of syntax and word order is demonstrated. Fishing cats are cats; catfish are fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, HeliX said: The "people would still gamble if we didn't facilitate it" argument is utter piss by the way. A lame attempt to absolve ourselves of responsibility of the harms gambling causes. Feel free to apply the same argument to people trafficking, murder for hire, etc etc. Adults should be free to gamble if they so wish (with plenty of controls and help available to mitigate the risk for those who struggle with addiction), but acting like we have no moral responsibility for people's wellbeing because "well, they'd do it anyway if it wasn't with us!" is tosh. I would say the argument is subtly different. It's not absolving from responsibility as much as accepting that removing online gambling businesses from the Isle of Man would not help people on the island struggling with gambling addictions. The protesters likely drove past betting shops, supermarkets with National Lottery stands and pubs with fruit machines to congregate outside of a business that mostly works with businesses located outside of the UK. Edited March 26 by loaf 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 When the fun stops... STOP Brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Advertising gambling on TV and on football shirts should be banned just like alcohol and smoking was. Celebrities advertising gambling should be ashamed of themselves. Also the industry should be taxed higher like tobacco with funds given to addiction charities and health services 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 2 hours ago, Banker said: Advertising gambling on TV and on football shirts should be banned just like alcohol and smoking was. Celebrities advertising gambling should be ashamed of themselves. Also the industry should be taxed higher like tobacco with funds given to addiction charities and health services Tobacco adverts were cool. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 42 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Tobacco adverts were cool. So were the alcohol one’s particularly Peter Kay’s ones but they still got banned!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Fucking puritans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Can I ask a question, probably aimed at Amadeus, does the gambling industry on the IoM provide support to people who are addicted to gambling? Like provide significant funds to 3rd party charities like motiv8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gizo said: Can I ask a question, probably aimed at Amadeus, does the gambling industry on the IoM provide support to people who are addicted to gambling? Like provide significant funds to 3rd party charities like motiv8? It seems to according to Motiv8's Annual Report: We are eternally grateful to the local gambling industry who continue support and donate to us. This vital service to locally affected individuals and their family members is not funded by the Government and would cease to exist without their kind donations. This funding allows us to fund a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and a team of trained GamCare counsellors. Also, new for autumn 2023 a group programme dedicated to those impacted by gambling disorder and an education officer to run gambling and gaming awareness sessions in the Island’s schools. Though there's an interesting comment elsewhere (p 10): During the past 12 months there has been an increase in our work within the gambling support network to develop and strengthen relationships. This has resulted in us qualifying with all of those who support us that they are happy for their donation to be used across our entire service and not solely for work in the gambling sector. I suspect in the past the Government had been relying on the industry to fund a large part of of Motiv8's work (which is mainly drugs and alcohol) and the industry got annoyed at having to do so and switched their donations to dedicated charities elsewhere like GamCare. Presumably some sort of compromise has been reached. Edited March 26 by Roger Mexico Clarity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 20 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: Yeah right Say your child, partner, parent or friend suffered life changing injuries through the actions ( intended or otherwise) of an uninsured driver ( because it was not compulsory ) which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to give them any sort of quality of life. Do you think all those, directly or indirectly, affected by such a situation would say “Oh goody there will be no monetary compensation to pay for all these costs, because those responsible for it don’t have that kind of money, but the individual responsible will have to take a driving retest or whatever” I find your attitude irresponsible. What's the first thing an insurance company would do when faced with such a claim? I'll tell you what, they'll try to find any reason regardless of how tenuous or immoral not to pay it. What is truly irresponsible is not only allowing a morally dubious and extremely greedy and lucrative industry to increasingly dictate what we're allowed to do with our lives and at what cost, but actually making dealing with these crooks a legal requirement. It does nothing to mitigate the risks, probably makes them worse, and certainly gives a false sense of security as anyone who's had the misfortune to make an insurance claim will be aware. There are good insurance companies out there, but they are severely outnumbered by the bad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, A fool and his money..... said: What's the first thing an insurance company would do when faced with such a claim? I'll tell you what, they'll try to find any reason regardless of how tenuous or immoral not to pay it. Do you think they should pay for something not covered in the policy/contact wording? Or do you think you understand the policy wording better than the insurers or their lawyers? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 26 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said: Do you think they should pay for something not covered in the policy/contact wording? Or do you think you understand the policy wording better than the insurers or their lawyers? I think they interpret the policies to suit themselves. Couple of examples, a friend of mine got knocked off his motorbike - a car change lanes suddenly on a roundabout and took him out basically. A couple of weeks later his car insurance was due for renewal, policy went up a lot, the reason given - the bike accident (bike no claims doesn't count on a car policy) but apparently a bike accident does affect a car policy. Anyway, fast forward a few months when the insurance was finally sorted for the bike, totally not his fault and the other driver's insurance paid - and yet his car insurance company still pocketed the increased premium - it's completely a one way street. Another case, someone I knew had a big crash, their fault, wrote off two cars, damage to some others, injuries, the whole works. Large insurance claim went in, insurance company didn't pay because she had filled the policy form in and stated she was a non-smoker as she has quit at the time. Prior to the accident she had started again. It had no bearing on the accident, she wasn't smoking at the time of the accident. The assessor found a half packet of cigs in the car and the insurance company used it as an excuse not to pay. These are just two examples. I've never made a motor claim but I did make a house insurance claim a few years ago. The lengths the insurance company went to to get out of paying it were staggering. They eventually paid it 8 months after I'd had to pay for the myself, but only after I'd made a formal complaint to the ombudsman who described it as a very straightforward claim which had been handled extremely poorly. If I'd have charged myself out at the minimum wage for the hours I spent on that claim, I'd have earned far more than the claim was worth. Never have I dealt with such a greedy, immoral, underhand and awkward industry. 1 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.