I can only presume today's comment price in the FT on the Isle of Man was paid for.
It cannot be serious journalism.
Just a snippet:
It is the economy's diversity, for an island of 80,000 people, that has helped it come though the downturn with a slowdown rather than a recession.
That did not come about by accident. The Isle of Man has painstakingly built niches in such areas as e-commerce, e-gaming, web hosting, filmmaking, and registering aircraft and ships to broaden its base and avoid over-reliance on financial services.
Film making, I agree, was an innovation. Full marks. The rest are just more tax haven activities! Who do they think they're kidding?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Actually, I think you’ll find that film making is hardly an innovation and is designed to attract film production companies for various tax reasons. Yes, occasionally a film might need to use a bit of seasidey type scenery or whatever, but in the main, the vast majority of the films made on the Isle of Man could have been made just about anywhere.
Editorials/features appearing in the Financial Times are becoming increasingly unreliable to the extent that some consider it be no longer a serious newspaper. Paid for? You bet it was!
Also remember that the Isle of Man is a closed society and any information released by its government is sanitised and/or corrupted to suit political purposes. Obtaining and imparting accurate information is a vital part of the modern political process but despite promising a Freedom of Information Act, the Isle of Man government still holds back the legislation.
Serious students of press and government manipulation of facts should read “The Silent State” by Heather Brook. Perhaps the Isle of Man government has learnt some “tricks” from this excellent book?
I gave up reading the FT years ago.
As well as crap like this, there were the “balancing” follow-up “puffs”. Written by the likes of Max Clifford on behalf of CEOs, and printed practically unaltered, the day after publication elsewhere in the newpaper of the mildest criticism of poor performance or behaviour.