Addie Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Tynwald Question Paper It's absolutely stuffed with MEA and Police questions. But sliding in at number 18, has terrier Mr Karran unearthed another bone! After struggling to wade through all of the questions, it promises to be a very lively sitting! Typo in heading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blixo Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Tynwald Question Paper It's absolutely stuffed with MEA and Police questions. But sliding in at number 18, has terrier Mr Karran unearthed another bone! Hmm I think there's quite a few bones in there... 35, 44, 49, 76 & 77 look to be rather tasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 and Q47 regarding the alleged disturbance of the Solway Harvester wreck makes an interesting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 ultra vires: 'beyond strength'; beyond or exceeding the authority of a person, court, etc. Q57. The Hon Member for Onchan (Mr Corkill) to ask HM Attorney General - (1) Where conditions attached to planning approvals are considered to be ultra vires what is the appropriate action to be taken by the Planning Division of the Department of Local Government and the Environment; (2) is it possible for conditions of planning approvals to be enforced over and above Human Rights, Fair Trading and Data Protection legislation; (3) how often do your Chambers advise the Planning Committee of the extent of their powers under planning law and in particular the necessity to attach conditions which are unambiguous, defineable and enforceable in law; and (4) do you agree that the Planning Committee is unable to attach conditions of planning which fall outside of the above criteria? Isn't a member of Mr. C's family appealing against an 'unfair' condition in relation to planning permision granted for a business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Does anyone understand these things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellyiom Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Does anyone understand these things? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> great spot; gonna be an interesting session. I'm ok with these things; looks pretty straightforward...someones tried to set up a company here which doesn't conform to the freedoms afforded to companies in law. Judging by the name of the company, maybe it was some sort of charitable/trust type thing...should have gone to panama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 After struggling to wade through all of the questions, it promises to be a very lively sitting! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a shame the quality of the questions is so poor ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 What a shame the quality of the questions is so poor ! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't hold out too much hope for the quality of the answers, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Ned is using Tynwald by asking the question he is for his own personal gain, every time another member has asked any questions regarding his holiday homes he has shouted subjudicy. Its my opinion that he is trying to get the court actions against them thrown out by creating a case of subjudicy, and he will be protected due to Tynwald priviliege. We have been told that we can not disclose any information over the court case in case it causes the courts to throw the cases out, yet Neds being allowed to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Well it is subjudice. Maybe you should take your lawyer's advice and shut up about it completely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Well it is subjudice. Maybe you should take your lawyer's advice and shut up about it completely? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.