Cronky Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 From Manx Radio: No more flag days in Douglas David Christian says 'flag days' play an important part in the life of the town, but it's possible to overdo it This seems a very tough attitude. Surely only good comes out of collectiong for charity. Why restrict collections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The Town Hall says the limit of 28 for the year has already been reached, and any further applications will be turned down. Since most of these are likely to be Saturdays - more than half of the year is already covered. It's enough. Charity is fine, but there is such a thing as 'overkill.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The Town Hall says the limit of 28 for the year has already been reached, and any further applications will be turned down. Since most of these are likely to be Saturdays - more than half of the year is already covered. It's enough. Charity is fine, but there is such a thing as 'overkill.' I disagree. IMO, it should be up to people in the street to decide who they want to support (i.e. let the 'charity market' decide). Uber Fuhrers at the council should only check if the charities are legitimate, and perhaps follow certain rules/standards about pestering people e.g. their positions, agreed approach etc. How would people feel, for example, if they couldn't buy a poppy in the street this year if the British Legion's applicaton hadn't gone in yet? It probably has with a major councillor involved with the BL, but that's not the point. They'll be banning demonstrations against the council next and ordering people to first get permission to demonstrate (oh - they already have in the 2007 bylaws!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 They'll be banning demonstrations against the council next and ordering people to first get permission to demonstrate (oh - they already have in the 2007 bylaws!). What was the problem before this? Were there too many spontaneous demonstrations as people took to the streets in protest? (maybe over bylaws like that one). What was inadequate with existing legislation which prevents rioting etc.? What counts as a demonstration? (You probably know the nonsense over such regulations in Parliament Square - i.e. handing out leaflets or wearing a t-shirt with a political slogan can potentially be counted as such). Have there actually been any protest marches or demonstrations at all in IoM in the past 40 years? (CND? War in Iraq?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 They'll be banning demonstrations against the council next and ordering people to first get permission to demonstrate (oh - they already have in the 2007 bylaws!). What was the problem before this? Were there too many spontaneous demonstrations as people took to the streets in protest? (maybe over bylaws like that one). What was inadequate with existing legislation which prevents rioting etc.? see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 It looks like they have just decided to cut and paste the UK practicing or regulating everything out of existence. I remember the annoyance when the 'don't work on your car in the street' rule came in. It was just a handout to the RAC and the AA as you had to call them out if you wanted to change a wheel or car battery. Is there no check on this guys authoritarian approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Is there no check on this guys authoritarian approach? I wrote asking for permission to hold a demo against him, but he didn't write back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 I wrote asking for permission to hold a demo against him, but he didn't write back. Very droll; someone needs to take him down a peg or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Thanks AT How very silly. It is quite quaint and homegrown in some ways - like the ban on loitering in churchdoors for example. The prohibition on demonstrations seems to be a general prohibition on any unauthorised 'procession'. Maybe there was a need for this with teachers walking groups of kids in town, or the Japanese tour groups and the historic walks tours were becoming a nuisance. It seems the restriction only applies to the organiser - the person wanting to hold this - and taking part is only an offence if required to desist by a uniformed constable. There seems nothing wrong with congregating in a particular place, waving banners around, and staging a protest that way - it just has to be static - not a march or 'procession' (and mustn't involve any loitering in a churchdoor!). You could even hold several in different places - just there shouldn't be a procession in the movement of people from one to another. The excessive noise is perhaps needed to put a stop to nuisance carol singers (who need permission from the council - otherwise you can tell them to shut up and they will be committing an offence otherwise, and are probably touting anyway). It seems that even if you do have permission to have a procession you can still be told to be quiet by any person, and must then conduct the procession without making any loud or annoying noise. Unless marching and parading is really important, I'd stick with static protests and demonstrations as even authorised marches will still have to be quiet if any one person is annoyed by this. 7 days - why. Is there an overload of applications? Maybe it is a bit about 'cooling off' possible spontaneous demonstrations against an issue? I think the quiet congregation demonstration is good enough - with lots of silent banner waving if you like. You don't need advanced permission for that, so no worries. Providing the protest is not touting a service, then it seems its ok to obstruct streets and pavements etc. i.e. you can have your own quiet version of Tiananmen Square protests in Douglas and the Council cannot send in their tanks or stop you. You can even blockade the town hall - just no touting or spraying. I like the ban on touting and soliticiting for any service in the street (or adjacent areas). You said those 'Jesus is coming' signs annoy you. Unless they have obtained permission from the Council, they are perhaps flouting these regulations and might be liable to being fined. Amazing that you can't play footie in an open area if it might annoy someone (who perhaps wants to take that spot you found as a picnic spot). However it seems you can have a big snarly and menacing dangerous dog, and that's ok provided it is not on the loose. (maybe it is snapping at you on the lead - but unlike the ball game that's ok). Washing or cleaning yards and gardens is a bit steep. Given the way 'street' is defined, this can mean your own garden if it opens onto a public highway. Hence you cannot sweep leaves from your yard to your garden or the like. Instead it seems only the Council are allowed to do this for you. Have there been many problem causing processions in Douglas? Why are military processions excepted? Surely the only military would not be from IoM, but rather those of a foreign power. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard are allowed to march through Douglas without having to get permission from the Council, but a tour guide taking a dozen elderly Japanese housewives around Douglas has to get written permission 7 days beforehand. I suppose the Iranian Revolutionary Guard marching through Douglas wouldn't exactly be a 'nuisance' or 'annoying' - just very worrying. On the plus side, thanks to the Council you could make them do it quietly and not have them shout, shoot guns wildly in the air, or play their trumpets. This isn't any great threat to anyone's civil liberties - it's just silly granny nonsense that seems almost laughable in parts. Is there no check on this guys authoritarian approach? My suggestion would be to identify exactly what parts of the bylaws really bother you, how you want it to be changed without losing what might be valid about these, and press to get the bylaws changed. If they tell you they are fine as they are, these bylaws gives you power to mount a one-man campaign to show it up. Report the schoolteacher walking the kids, the Brownie leader, tell the carol singers to shut up, complain about the Jesus is coming sign, complain about the baby that wet its nappies in a public place contra to s.10. etc. You can protest far more effectively by being the super-grumpy granny from hell than you could be trying to arrange a 'procession' - kind of 'work to rule'. Just don't make much noise, and don't loiter in church doors! Question I have though is since it seems it was approved by Tynwald, why did no one raise objections to these bylaws at that stage? If someone was apathetic and couldn't be bothered about this then, it hardly justifies indignation about something you consented to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 They do need some kind of control on demonstrations. Look at the general chaos below that occured when there was a demonstration on a nearby island...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It only seems to be ex councillors or ex mayors involved in handing out the flags. I see a conspiracy here. One quid donation outside Marksies anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Is there no check on this guys authoritarian approach? My suggestion would be to identify exactly what parts of the bylaws really bother you, how you want it to be changed without losing what might be valid about these, and press to get the bylaws changed. If they tell you they are fine as they are, these bylaws gives you power to mount a one-man campaign to show it up. Report the schoolteacher walking the kids, the Brownie leader, tell the carol singers to shut up, complain about the Jesus is coming sign, complain about the baby that wet its nappies in a public place contra to s.10. etc. You can protest far more effectively by being the super-grumpy granny from hell than you could be trying to arrange a 'procession' - kind of 'work to rule'. Just don't make much noise, and don't loiter in church doors! Question I have though is since it seems it was approved by Tynwald, why did no one raise objections to these bylaws at that stage? If someone was apathetic and couldn't be bothered about this then, it hardly justifies indignation about something you consented to. Why should permission be sought to fund charities in the street? It is hardly as if the street would become totally blocked by people collecting for charity. As far as I know, on the Island the people collecting do not hassle you, it is not quite like an active begging. I just don't see what the problem is. It all just seems so pathetic and so wrong. Have there been many problem causing processions in Douglas? Why are military processions excepted? Surely the only military would not be from IoM, but rather those of a foreign power. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard are allowed to march through Douglas without having to get permission from the Council, but a tour guide taking a dozen elderly Japanese housewives around Douglas has to get written permission 7 days beforehand. I suppose the Iranian Revolutionary Guard marching through Douglas wouldn't exactly be a 'nuisance' or 'annoying' - just very worrying. On the plus side, thanks to the Council you could make them do it quietly and not have them shout, shoot guns wildly in the air, or play their trumpets. Maybe a military procession has been exempted because it would just be silly to enact a law requiring an invading army to give notice of its procession. I don't think there have been any problems in the past. I can't remember any dangerous processions. But what is the issue with the processions though? Is it a mirroring of the UKs law surrounding demonstrations near Parliament? It does make me wonder as I don't see why a military or a religious procession should be exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I don't think there have been any problems in the past. I can't remember any dangerous processions. But what is the issue with the processions though? Is it a mirroring of the UKs law surrounding demonstrations near Parliament? It does make me wonder as I don't see why a military or a religious procession should be exempt. No its not a mirroring of the law about Parliament Square. That deals with demonstrations (which is not formally defined). This bylaw has a strange thing about 'processions' - so allowing protest gatherings, but not protest marches - or even tour groups. I've no idea what the issue is over processions in particular. It is odd that military and religious processions are exempt - there's no reason why they shouldn't have to give 7 days notice. My guess is that UK military (and maybe CoE) does not come under jurisdiction of Tynwald, and thus the bylaw makes this exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxblue Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 In my opinion, if you want to collect for whatever charity or cause you wish to, just go ahead and do it. I doubt very much that anybody would end up in court for doing so. Just another load of pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 In my opinion, if you want to collect for whatever charity or cause you wish to, just go ahead and do it. I doubt very much that anybody would end up in court for doing so. I am sure that's good advice. A council led prosecution against a charity would be outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.