P.K. Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 ... the land of my birth. Unlike the CM that's Mannin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do tell us more, PK. /me feeds out more rope ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What do you want to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Latest news from radio 930 FM - Ned behind the axing of Mannin Line from the new look Manx Radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Please explain? Allow me to oblige. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI James Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 PK said "What do you want to know?" You seem to be hinting that the CM was not born on the island. I'm simply awaiting details PK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Allow me to oblige.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ooooooohhh...... (ca-ching!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Mrs Crane asked the Chief Minister a question regarding the leaked Government documents. Part of the question was should the Government make an internal investigation and take legal action against any person under the official secrets act, if found to be the person that made the leaks. Mr Gawn then asked would this apply to MHKs as well as civil servants to which the CM replied that it would be the correct thing to do against Civil servants but should not be done against MHKs (double standards). The CM then told Tynwald that several Government officials had copies of the Government Auditors Findings regarding the grants and that they had them for over four months and it was only recently that his Advocate had requested a copy and recieved one. So Governments officials dont tell the press for over 4 months, but as soon as the CM gets his hands on a copy it gets leaked to the press. The CM then tells Tynwald it was not him that made the leak to the press (never mentioned his wife this time) Stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I don't see why MHK's should not be bound by the Official Secrets Act just the same as any other Civil Servant. Surely they must sign to this effect anyway? Civil Servants sign to agree to be bound by it as part of their employment contract I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 He was asked that question a couple of times, same answer. But he did say it was an outdated law going back to 1911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Better still the Speaker droped a bollock today, he stoped Brenda Cannell from getting a reply to a question she had asked on the grounds of subjudicy. Trouble is the Speaker was wrong to do this as the question refered to a court case that had been settled and was over. First question was Mr Cretney can you confirm that your department admitted in the select committe meeting that the invoices submitted by the Builders had in fact not been paid, Answer yes. Mr Cretney can you also confirm that the same person from your department said under oath in the small claims court in Aprill 04 that all the Builders invoices had been receipted as paid. Mr Cretney told not to answer by the Speaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I suppose that although this relates to a historical event, it is also tied in to the current proceedings and as it will no doubt be a key issue in the current proceedings, then it falls within the remit of the subjudicy rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 PK said "What do you want to know?" You seem to be hinting that the CM was not born on the island. I'm simply awaiting details PK <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, I do not access this forum Friday to Sunday and then I misunderstood what detail you were after. This arose because if you google the CM's name you will get potted histories of him all over the place so I thought that it was details of myself you were after. The point I was trying to make, clearly very badly, is that I am Manx, I am proud of my birthright and heritage (or I was until this lot came to power) and if I ever return I would always have Manx interests at heart. The CM, on the other hand, has stayed in office whilst under (admittedly what appears to be a VERY slothful) police investigation and is also embroiled in litigation over public money where he seems to have received two almost maximum public grants for one project. At the same time we are all supposed to believe that the builders ignored the plans and built what they fancied outside of what had been agreed upon and over the whole length of the project and during upteen inspections neither the CM nor his wife noticed that the builders were building what they liked rather than what they had been given planning permission for. Now I think the CM should be CM not to line his own pockets at the expense of the public purse and nor for his own self-aggrandisement. I believe the CM should be CM for what he can do for the Manx. However that is simply my own opinion honestly held and I am sure everyone has their own opinion on how the current CM is performing. I am sure I have also mentioned this somewhere before in this mega-thread. However I am also intrigued as to why my opinion of the CM is so important to you. Care to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I suppose that although this relates to a historical event, it is also tied in to the current proceedings and as it will no doubt be a key issue in the current proceedings, then it falls within the remit of the subjudicy rule. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry Obs, it does not fall within subjudicy as its a past case which was settled and had a result which has been made public. I put this in writing today to the Speaker Mr Brown and he kindly replied that he had thought that the question was related to the ongoing case of CuPlasCallow v RK&J Corkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 That's what I mean though - it depends how you interpret his reply. Does he mean that he agreed that he misunderstood and thought it was a direct question in relation to the current case, or does he mean that he understood it was historical but as he thought it was related to the ongoing case, made a judgement call that it should not be discussed. See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Its in the Manx Indy DTL tell one court one thing and then tell an other court something different and both under oath. It also says that the speaker made a mistake in not allowing the answer to the question. Will the DTL be taken to court for for telling lies or will they get the cover up to. Latest guests at the dinner party Ned,The Judge and the Iceman, very cosy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.