Slim Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 What's that going to achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I expect it'll achieve a swift cut into an advert interval. Heh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Here's the bit I don't get about the whole thing: If the Dept of Tourism have admitted the grants were awarded in error, and the CM says he's acted in good faith, why doesn't Ned have to return the money he was given by mistake? If he's as honest and squeaky as he's making out, wouldn't he do that on his own without being forced to? The parellel is with an expense claim at work. If I spend something and forget to get a reciept, then I can't claim the expense. If I can understand that, why can't Ned? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A very sensible thing to do, wonder if he has ? Thing about the CM is that he has only commented when he has had to, playing the rest of his cards close to his chest, unlike FMCR. Definatley a question for mannin line me thinks. Geo <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whos got all the press and radio time, Ned me thinks, lets hear from Mrs Ned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 OK - I know that I generally use the forum to talk 'off the record', have a bit of fun and give personal opinions rather than those of my employer. But let me - personally - make an important point here. This is a very complex situation: 1) There's a civil case between the builders and their clients. 2) There's a committee looking into the whole grant issue. 3) There's a police investigation into allegations made to an MHK. It's the people of the Isle of Man - and it's they who own the station (not the politicians) - who decide what they want to say on the Mannin Line - I have no real control of the agenda. My job is to moderate without being too intrusive (hopefully), try to ensure fairness and balance, and thereby provide an entertaining and informative programme without everyone getting sued. Remember, we broadcast a disclaimer at the top of every show that comments made by callers are THEIR responsibility. Make no mistake, if I was slandered or libelled in the media I'd be straight round to an advocate - and I assume that others are much more sensitive than me. Also remember that despite the disclaimer and my best efforts, the radio station can still be held responsible as the 'publisher' of a defamatory or slanderous statement - and I WILL cut anyone off mid-stream if I think there's a danger of that happening. Observer is quite right. Nothing is served by airing innuendo, spurious skeet or malicious gossip on The Mannin Line. I enjoy spirited debate as much as the next guy, and welcome topics that generate it. But the right to free speech comes at the cost of significant responsibility. I don't intend to restrict anyone's right to the former as long as they appreciate their legal and moral responsibility. This whole case - and any others that people raise prematurely or recklessly - could easily fall apart if it's felt that media coverage had prejudiced due process. And THAT wouldn't serve the Isle of Man or its people. PLEASE think it through VERY carefully if you decide to call in on a sensitive subject. Nobody is attempting to 'gag' The Mannin Line - but it could suffer fatal damage if people hijack it to achieve their own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Correct Stu, but what I meant to say is that every time we turn the radio on its Ned making statements and have they been checked out as true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 To give an example, Ned was heard several times on M R this week saying that he had never met me and that his wife had only briefly met me twice. This was total lies, and I sent a statement into the radio to say this, that got a one liner once. And I repeat again,that Ned has met me quite a few times, at the start and on the opening of a building in Onchan in which I completed and that was in the press. ned introduced me up at his home to the MD of a Big Construction Company, witnessed by others. Seeing as how It was my employees that decorated many areas of their own home over a period of over 5or6 weeks, I personally went over the job with her every other day, this to was witnessed by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI James Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I agree with a lot that you say Stu. However, Manx Radio is more than Mannin Line. It's more than its current presenters, current listeners or current MHKs. With no offence intended, they all come and go with a now familiar regularity. Manx Radio's 40 years old and I've listened to it, on and off, for all that time. I've certainly contributed to it financially for most of that time too. In the past I've also contributed to the Mannin Line on some occasions. Manx radio news has witnessed many defensive statements from certain quarters. The statements slick and timed to perfection. It takes experience to time a declaration for 5pm Friday without too much fear of contradiction until Monday. All that does is make me feel somewhat manipulated. It could seem to some listeners that certain people have 24/7 access to prime time manx radio and some do not. Maybe some simply do not request news time slots to voice their views. Some may not have teams of lawyers nurturing every thought and pronouncement. Some may sit in their offices and have Manx Radio come to them or call them. Others may have to trudge up to the station or have to call Manx Radio to voice their opinions. The right or wrongs in this case are unknown to me so I do not express an opinion either way at the moment. I'm watching and I'm listening. It does seem somewhat strange to me though, that one party can state their views and position regarding ongoing police investigations on a peak time national programme with seeming impunity and careless to possible effects on any police investigation, whereas others are 'warned' to be careful if they should ring in to a 45 minute local radio phone-in. It would be a shame if anyone let rose coloured spectacles colour one's necessary impartiality too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Again, I'm speaking personally and not for my employers here, and with respect, I don't intend to debate this any further for the reasons already stated. James - I respect your opinion and think you make some good points. However, you've probably identified yourself that there is a significant difference between the media carrying a story about an elected leader making an official statement (presumably carefully checked by legal experts) and someone providing bits of information on an ad-hoc basis - however valid they may or may not turn out to be in the fullness of time. My colleagues and I certainly don't have rose-tinted glasses... we as much as anyone with an interest in this matter want the truth to come out. I believe that we report fairly and without fear or favour. But as every word uttered or written could have very serious legal consequences - not just for us but for the parties involved - we need to report very carefully on allegations made by either party. I expect some people DO know better than others how to time the release of information too - but don't shoot the messenger because of that! And my 'warning' is made entirely on a personal basis and in good faith. Many people simply don't understand that a conversation you have with mates down the pub could cost you thousands - or worse - if repeated on a forum like this, or in the media. I'm only trying to emphasise that point. FMCR - how could we possibly check the truth of ANY of the statements made so far this year in these - or any other - matters. That's for others to do - in this case either the police, the committee or the High Court. Our job is to report fairly and impartially, whilst not spending too much taxpayers money on having a legal team on standby 24/7 to ensure that we're not prejudicing matters or impeding proper legal inquiries. We don't make the rules guys - we just have to stick to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 GI James I thought it was only me that had noticed the timing of statements and yes I also felt that the radio was being used as a propoganda tool. I will also make no judgement on the rights and wrongs of the individuals involved in this whole sorry afair but I am seriously concerned that because the investigations are being carried out by our Local Police Force who are politically adminstered by the Home Affairs Minister appointed by the Chief Minister that when it is announced that there was no Criminal case to answer it will not be believed in some quarters in the Isle of Man who will still continue to destabalize our Government to the detriment of the Island. The CM and the Islands Government would be in such a strong position if this same conclusion was drawn from an investigating team from off the Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 FCMR - I notice you are against all the underhandedness, is this a new thing? I mean, is it since you were throw out of the brown envelope brigade? Like it was OK for you to do the work on the gits house(so you must have been aware of the grant situ then- was it ok til they didn't pay?), you probably had HH/Dandare contracts. I have never had contact or dealing with any of these types of people -I am currently disgusted with my boss (he is eating at Dandares home this weekend) STANDARDS, people have them, how come somepeoples views change to suit their own circumstances? La la laaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 FCMR - I notice you are against all the underhandedness, is this a new thing? I mean, is it since you were throw out of the brown envelope brigade?Like it was OK for you to do the work on the gits house(so you must have been aware of the grant situ then- was it ok til they didn't pay?), you probably had HH/Dandare contracts. I have never had contact or dealing with any of these types of people -I am currently disgusted with my boss (he is eating at Dandares home this weekend) STANDARDS, people have them, how come somepeoples views change to suit their own circumstances? La la laaaaa <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have never been in the brown envelope brigade, nor do I want to, All I ask is a good days pay for a good days work. I dont work for any of the mentioned companies. And as for working at Neds, as stated before I was a partner in the Construction Firm that COMPLETED the works as charged for. When or if we can get them into court the public will hear what the problems were and why the police were called in by the DTL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 The alegations that have been made against the Chief Minister have been leaked, allegedly by a member of the Tourism Department. Having seen a copy, it seems that the Memo is from David Cretney MHK, and they are not alegations but a list of questions for written reply. Most of the questions relate to what has already been said in various courts regarding the Grant payments and why the grants were paid out when legal proceedings were ongoing. It is said that the alegations had come from one of the builders, but this is not the case from what I have read. I for one would like to hear the Chief Minister answer these questions now and not next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 And Ned still goes free! What a FKG joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gribbon Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Off thread and all that but I seen Mannin Line mentioned before. Mr Peters, when on Friday you said "that's it I'm not going to argue or give my opinion anymore" (you later said for THAT DAY only!!) there was a load of calls came in. mmmhh, did that tell you anything? ps I personly prefer it when you give em agood talking back to, but obviously all them that phoned in don't! I must say, you must have been really biting your tongue when Captain Morenzi gave his ideas on birth control and delinquin children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 BTT - The Examiner had a thingy by John Quirk advising Neddy No Good to stand down, when is this going to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.