Chief Minister: Allan Bell V Peter Karran

[P.K.]

As I posted maiden speeches by convention are non contentious

 

Oh really? Pray tell, just who decides what constitutes being "contentious" or not?

 

Yes, it's subjective - well fancy that!

 

As I posted previously there are some who yesterday demonstrated EXACTLY why they should not be there. I would have called it shameful but then if they had shame as a trait most would not be in Tynwald in the first place - and that most definitely includes the new MM non-resigning CM.

[Andy Onchan]

There is freedom of speech but freedom of speech in the outside world and freedom of speech in a court are a totally different kettle of fish entirely.

And Tynwald of all places is where you should be allowed to do so. You may not have liked what you heard but under parliamentary privilege they exercised that right and long may that continue.

 

Neither members were allowed to complete their respective speeches which is grossly unfair so we will never know the full context of what they were alluding to. Shameful, nothing more nothing less.

[Lost Login]

 

Sometimes, when a convention gets in the way of common sense it should be ignored.

I will not argue with that, but I expect consistancy on both sides. Either both sides should be expected to maintain convention or neither side should. I read on here it is fine that KB broke with convention but it was wrong that convention of the listening to maiden speeches in silence was broken.

 

All nomination speeches are contentious, are you suggesting that nomination speeches can only be made by non-newbies. Because that would have prevented Karran's name going forward.

Skelly's speech I would hardly describe as contentious.

Similarly, the shameful conduct of Braidwood, Lowey & Christian trawling up vague and irrelevant rules only succeeded in denying a fair hearing to Karran's case. This wasn't a Radio 4 panel game where no deviation or repetition is allowed. It was a speech by democratically elected members of Tynwald attempting to advance the platform they were elected upon. One doesn't need to agree with them or what they said to recognise that petty rules were being used for partisan ends by the Legco members.

Fine, but again I expect consistancy on whatever side.

[Lost Login]

 

And Tynwald of all places is where you should be allowed to do so. You may not have liked what you heard but under parliamentary privilege they exercised that right and long may that continue.

 

Neither members were allowed to complete their respective speeches which is grossly unfair so we will never know the full context of what they were alluding to. Shameful, nothing more nothing less.

 

But you can also abuse such privileges and in my view the LVP did. I would equally argue the position if it had been Bell attacking the LVP or PK yesterday.

 

You should have a right to speak and be heard in any parliament, but you should respect that right and restrict yourself to the issue at hand. I do not believe the LVP did yesterday.

[CableGuy]

But you can also abuse such privileges and in my view the LVP did. I would equally argue the position if it had been Bell attacking the LVP or PK yesterday.

 

You should have a right to speak and be heard in any parliament, but you should respect that right and restrict yourself to the issue at hand. I do not believe the LVP did yesterday.

 

Spot on, I am sure if LibVan had made a simple nomination and seconding and then Bell's proposer and seconder had spent their time slagging off Peter Karran then the same interjections would have occurred.

 

This wasn't a direct criticism of LIbVan members but them being told to respect the court and get back onto the point in hand.

[Terse]

.

[P.K.]

You should have a right to speak and be heard in any parliament, but you should respect that right and restrict yourself to the issue at hand. I do not believe the LVP did yesterday.

 

So tell me, going on past PROVEN experience, what is to stop LibVan members from always questioning the new CM like this:

 

"Firstly, can you please assure us you are not misleading us again?"

 

"Secondly, about all this dog poo...."

 

What constitutes acceptable behaviour is subjective and always will be. So you can chase this one around and around all you like. However to me an UNELECTED Court Official deliberately preventing an ELECTED Member from representing their electorate by not letting them have their say is totally unacceptable behaviour and they should be castigated for it.

[Andy Onchan]

Finally lets turn it around what if AB's supporters yesterday had used the opportunity to attack PK or LVP in their speeches. Would you have said that was acceptable. I would not. Equally from what you are saying you would believe it acceptable that at all future occasions under Freedom of Speech Ministers, MHK's etc should just be allowed to attack PK or the LVP regardless of the issue etc. Again I do not

It's called politics.

[groudleho]

an UNELECTED Court Official deliberately preventing an ELECTED Member from representing their electorate by not letting them have their say is totally unacceptable behaviour and they should be castigated for it.

 

Hadn't thought of it like that, well said, excellent

[Andy Onchan]

 

And Tynwald of all places is where you should be allowed to do so. You may not have liked what you heard but under parliamentary privilege they exercised that right and long may that continue.

 

Neither members were allowed to complete their respective speeches which is grossly unfair so we will never know the full context of what they were alluding to. Shameful, nothing more nothing less.

 

But you can also abuse such privileges and in my view the LVP did. I would equally argue the position if it had been Bell attacking the LVP or PK yesterday.

 

You should have a right to speak and be heard in any parliament, but you should respect that right and restrict yourself to the issue at hand. I do not believe the LVP did yesterday.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't (and can't) stand in your way to express that view, even if it's not in Tynwald !

 

I believe that the issue was clouded because both PK's nominator & seconder chose to use their maiden speech to support PK. at the same time. I see nothing wrong in that if standing orders permit it.

[CableGuy]

What constitutes acceptable behaviour is subjective and always will be. So you can chase this one around and around all you like. However to me an UNELECTED Court Official deliberately preventing an ELECTED Member from representing their electorate by not letting them have their say is totally unacceptable behaviour and they should be castigated for it.

 

It think the issue of unelected vs elected is irrelevant in this matter as they weren't preventing them from speaking, they were telling them repeatedly to stick to their nomination speech and to not spend their time criticising other members and dragging up past issues that have been previously discussed.

 

If people are allowed to spend their time talking about what they want and slagging off other members of tynwald then nothing will get done and we may as well demote them all to the playground so they can carry on with the other children calling each other names.

 

People on here claim that nothing gets done in tynwald same old same old, but then complain when valid criticisms are made at members who are waffling and wasting the courts time not talking about the point in hand.

[Lost Login]

an UNELECTED Court Official deliberately preventing an ELECTED Member from representing their electorate by not letting them have their say is totally unacceptable behaviour and they should be castigated for it.

 

Hadn't thought of it like that, well said, excellent

 

It is all semantics.

What court official was unelected? I thought the President was elected by members of Tynwald.

As for the member representing their constituents, whether it is the LVP or whoever, Tynwald or say any other Parliament I always think that is tosh as members when they stand up generally do not in my opinion think is what I am saying or how I am acting how the majority of my constituents would want me to. They represent themselves or at best their party. But..

If we accept that they are representing their constituent’s wishes then surely they were also when the President was elected.

As I said it is all semantics

[censorship]

People on here claim that nothing gets done in tynwald same old same old, but then complain when valid criticisms are made at members who are waffling and wasting the courts time not talking about the point in hand.

It's a little deeper than that. There would be no defence of the members speaking if they hadn't been Karran cronies. They are allowed to behave like infantile morons, cos that's their human rights innit, and anyone who criticises them for doing it is pro-establishment and part of the 'conspiracy'. As had been mentioned, if one of Bell's supporters had launched into the same stream of ill-conceived vitriol against Karran, everyone would be on here demanding to know why the President didn't have them dragged out of the chamber and flogged to deat in the street.

[Lost Login]

I believe that the issue was clouded because both PK's nominator & seconder chose to use their maiden speech to support PK. at the same time. I see nothing wrong in that if standing orders permit it.

 

But the argument is they were not speaking to propose, second or support PK. If you believe they were then you will see nothing wrong in what they said, if you view as I do that they were not speaking to propose, second or support PK but rather using the opportunity to have a go at AB, the past Govt and anything else they could think of your view may be different

[Andy Onchan]

I believe that the issue was clouded because both PK's nominator & seconder chose to use their maiden speech to support PK. at the same time. I see nothing wrong in that if standing orders permit it.

 

But the argument is they were not speaking to propose, second or support PK. If you believe they were then you will see nothing wrong in what they said, if you view as I do that they were not speaking to propose, second or support PK but rather using the opportunity to have a go at AB, the past Govt and anything else they could think of your view may be different

Yes they were speaking to nominate & second, it's just that they weren't allowed to finish their speeches in the context in which they were written. Whether you liked the contents or not is, as you say, up to the individual. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.