Free Speech Clampdown? - Government Consultation.

[wazir]

The police can see all Facebook profiles

 

Please tell me you don't really believe that...

 

http://www.facebook.com/thepolice

 

?

[Cronky]

The fact that it is a consultation means that any or all of us can write in and object, the issue is that in the Government has said that they can take no notice of any submission, this was the consultation on consultation.........

 

It needs to be fought, people power does work, if you get enough people involved!

 

You not joking mate. The Consultation states:

 

The purpose of consultation is not to be a referendum but an information, views and evidence

gathering exercise from which to take an informed decision on the content of proposed legislation

or policy. In any consultation exercise the responses received do not guarantee changes will be

made to what has been proposed.

 

Following the completion of the consultation exercise it is the Department’s intention for the Bill to

proceed to the House of Keys for first reading in December 2009.

 

and

 

The Bill covers a wide range of issues but the key assumption is that the community would

wish the law to keep up with technological advances whilst recognising the need to maintain

good public order and improve community safety.

 

Provisions that relate to police powers and organisation may be a sensitive area for some.

 

There are 85 clauses in the Bill. The Consultation ends on 20 November and they want the first reading in December?

 

It looks like they regard the Bill as a done deal.

[%age]

Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see what the House of Keys and especially some of the stuffed dummies up in the Legislative Council have to say on each clause.

 

This is yet another beautiful piece of legislation for the gormless but highly paid and pensioned shower of tw@ts that have written it. Most of our wonderful politicians will simply wave their limp wristed paws in the air to say "aye" to each and every clause.

 

To be serious, I want to know who the fuck in their right mind is going to stand up and present each of these clauses.

 

Of the House of Keys, a few would not touch this proposed legislation with a shitty stick. Not having the intelligence to see the implications, others will happily go the "Yes man" route in the style of "better to shut the fuck up and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it"

 

I doubt there is am MHK who is fuck-witted enough to present this legislation in its current proposed form.

 

First reading in December?

 

Bring it on, let's see the sponsor proposing the legislation. They must surely be extremely confident they are going to just walk-in come the next General Election.

[Langweilig]

Why bother going to the expense of introducing laws they can't and won't police? They brought in a law against using a mobile phone while driving and every day you see dozens of people speaking and texting while driving yet no one gets done for it.

 

IOM is turning into as bad a nanny state as the UK is.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. I've never had to sit through a three hour instructional video "What to do if you get splashed by water" before climbing to the top of the Laxey Wheel.

 

 

Drinking in public places

2.8 Clause 40 (pages 121 to 123) enables a constable to require a person to desist from the

consumption of alcohol if, in the opinion of the constable, that person is making a nuisance

of him or herself in any public place in the Island. This is a development from the present

power of constable to require a person to desist from the consumption of alcohol if a

person is making a nuisance of his or herself in a designated place and will provide for

regulations for when such powers may be used.

____________________________________

 

Oh go on then, nuke Hutchinson Square from orbit.

[Cronky]

Of the House of Keys, a few would not touch this proposed legislation with a shitty stick. Not having the intelligence to see the implications, others will happily go the "Yes man" route in the style of "better to shut the fuck up and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it"

 

Good point. People will have to respond to the consultation and lobby their MHK's to stop this legislation being rushed through.

 

Otherwise the 'Yes Men' will just back the Council of Ministers and surely let us down again.

[tarroo.ushtey]

Of the House of Keys, a few would not touch this proposed legislation with a shitty stick. Not having the intelligence to see the implications, others will happily go the "Yes man" route in the style of "better to shut the fuck up and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it"

 

Good point. People will have to respond to the consultation and lobby their MHK's to stop this legislation being rushed through.

 

Otherwise the 'Yes Men' will just back the Council of Ministers and surely let us down again.

 

Because, if they don't they get fired, see the ministerial code of conduct.

[Theodolite]

We always seem to believe that our MHKs, the people we elect to represent us, will look after our interests.

 

Largely, nothing could be further from the truth. When things go wrong we might threaten to "go to my MHK" (in the old days of course, we would threaten to phone the Mannin Line). Our MHKs are not almighty powerful, they are generally meek as toothless puppy dogs.

 

Exept that is when introducing legislation. For that is their primary and perhaps only purpose.

 

And yet, I have seen some of these clowns at work in the House of Keys. Clause by clause by clause I see buffoonery at work as our normally vociferous and loudmouth leaders suddenly become rather timid and servile as they meekly wave their hands in agreement to each and every clause. Perhaps, maybe, occasionally, a quiet wimper at a clause they are able to possibly understand, But sure enough they'll go with the 'ayes' in the end, unless they are feeling really, really brave and naughty.

 

This proposed legislation is a beauty. Not only will it expose once and for all, the ineptitude of the House of Keys but the Civil Servants who have drawn up and drafted this farce.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

(3) Subsection (4) applies if a constable in uniform has reasonable

grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of 10 or more

persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to

result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or

distressed.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), the constable may give one or more of

the following directions―

(a) a direction requiring the persons in the group to disperse (either

immediately or by such time and in such way as the constable may

specify);

 

Don't like this one. "Likely to result"?

 

Nor this:

 

(6) If, between the hours of 9pm and 6am, a constable in uniform finds

a person in any public place in the relevant locality who the constable has

reasonable grounds for believing―

(a) is under the age of 16; and

Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Consultation Draft

213

(b) is not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person

aged 18 or over,

the constable may remove the person to the person’s place of residence unless

the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person would, if

removed to that place, be likely to suffer significant harm.

[Cronky]

This proposed legislation is a beauty. Not only will it expose once and for all, the ineptitude of the House of Keys but the Civil Servants who have drawn up and drafted this farce.

 

And presumably the civil servants in question are just writing what the police want - and that's the UK police I am talking about. Because these proposals do little more than mirror the nastiest working practices of New Labour's client cop shop.

[thebees]

Ha! I think I shall write and complain, see what happens. Tomorrow I shall read through the thing, note bits I do not like (in a letter) state my reasons and then send the letter in. Well least I can say I tried, I might run the letter past you kindly folks for appro first

[Cronky]

The topic was well covered on Sunday Opinion:

 

Sunday Opinion 16 Nov

 

Someone has been doing their homework. Well worth a listen to if you can spare twenty minutes or so.

 

Apparently the proposed laws are reminiscent of 'Seditious Libel' laws and are worded in such a way that criticism of the Government could be construed as 'hate crime'.

[Rog]

There’s a couple of the LegCo of whom hating would be an entirely appropriate emotion, perfectly logical, and well deserved.

[Cronky]

There’s a couple of the LegCo of whom hating would be an entirely appropriate emotion, perfectly logical, and well deserved.

 

I bet the people you refer to don' t like this guy then:

 

'Bill threatens to make Isle of Man a police state' - claims MLC

 

Because he doesn't mince his words:

 

THE Isle of Man could become a police state if a new criminal justice bill goes ahead, warned David Callister MLC.