Rob Callister

[thesultanofsheight]

25 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

On the contrary, Contempt of Tynwald is a thing mentioned in Standing Orders and complaints can be brought against non-members as well:

The whole thing is left very vague as to what such a contempt would entail, but there's no doubt it exists.

Isn’t that what did for John Hougton and got him banned from entering the building? Seems odd they even pretend to claim that they might mythical powers in relation to private citizens. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[Rushen Spy]

Surely those rules only apply within the Tynwald chamber, e.g. to non-members in the Public Gallery?

It's hard to see what possible powers or remit they have over some guy in Pulrose typing  on Manx Forums.

Hypothetically, let's say someone (not me) was in the Public Gallery and threw an egg at a politician in protest. I assume the Standing Orders would allow for the person to be removed and not allowed back. Although, as Sultan mentioned above, with the case of Houghton, would such rules allow them to stop the person running for public office in Tynwald, thereby cancelling out the order, or would they have to make a special request of Tynwald to be allowed to run for public office?

I forget the whole case of Houghton. Will need to look it up again as I've totally forgotten what he did, but I do remember thinking it was bang out of order to not allow him into Tynwald. Was he even allowed the option to apologise to be allowed back in?

Edited June 20, 2019 by Rushen Spy

[Roger Mexico]

27 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Isn’t that what did for John Hougton and got him banned from entering the building? Seems odd they even pretend to claim that they might  [have] mythical powers in relation to private citizens. 

They do though because Tynwald counts as a Court with its own powers and the Keys and LegCo also have such powers.  They have used them in the past - though it hasn't always gone well for them (think of the reactions to the cases of Samuel Norris and James Brown).  And any modern attempts to enforce such powers might well fall foul of the Human Rights Act, depending on the circumstances.  But most parliaments have some form of contempt proceedings, if for example potential witnesses refuse to turn up to give evidence to a Committee.

[Andy Onchan]

It's Michael Mouse politics.

[Rushen Spy]

Still, Roger, it does seem like the historical examples you provided were aberrations of the times which were immediately condemned. They were before the invention of all the fast communication of news (e.g. to the UK Government or the wider public) we now enjoy. I don't think they would serve as any sort of precedent for imprisonment of political upstarts in the 21st century.

Do you know if there was any sort of media censorship or silencing order (I forget the exact term for that?) of coverage of the fact of Brown's imprisonment at the time? 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Rushen Spy

[buncha wankas]

I wonder if Rob Callister will comment on the decline in VIP ticket sales  for VIP area in TT.   Since he took over it looks like a ghost town in that Tent and grandstand.  Apart from himself strutting it was empty on race days.  Please advise the tax payer on the decline in ticket sales since civil servants took over ticket sales. 

He never answers questions, he just states the obvious whilst complaining in Tynwald that people dare to ask him questions.  

 

[Non-Believer]

The commercialisation of the event and its obvious milking by all interested parties from greasy spoons up to IoMG itself is slowly but surely throttling (no pun intended) it.

Its grassroots visitor support is being priced out of it and the pressures being exerted by commerce are slowly killing the goodwill effort that the event relies on in so many ways.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Rushen Spy said:

Still, Roger, it does seem like the historical examples you provided were aberrations of the times which were immediately condemned. They were before the invention of all the fast communication of news (e.g. to the UK Government or the wider public) we now enjoy. I don't think they would serve as any sort of precedent for imprisonment of political upstarts in the 21st century.

Do you know if there was any sort of media censorship or silencing order (I forget the exact term for that?) of coverage of the fact of Brown's imprisonment at the time? 

Well I sad Contempt of Tynwald was a thing, I didn't say it was a good thing.  Even for Tynwald.  There was a lot of coverage of Brown's imprisonment at the time - he was after all a newspaper editor - but the Keys were still unelected, so public opinion was less powerful.  More important it got a lot of coverage in the UK and that led to their intervention and eventually the Keys being elected.  There's an interesting talk on YouTube from Robert Fyson about it all.

[Rushen Spy]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well I sad Contempt of Tynwald was a thing, I didn't say it was a good thing.  Even for Tynwald.  There was a lot of coverage of Brown's imprisonment at the time - he was after all a newspaper editor - but the Keys were still unelected, so public opinion was less powerful.  More important it got a lot of coverage in the UK and that led to their intervention and eventually the Keys being elected.  There's an interesting talk on YouTube from Robert Fyson about it all.

It got more coverage in the UK, yes, at a time when instant communication hadn't yet been invented. In the age of the internet, the whole thing would be hilarious and would lead to any government seeking to exercise such actions being a massive joke on the international stage.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Rushen Spy

[piebaps]

Have we got any nearer to knowing what the buffoon actually said? I wonder whether cueball could make a blog of it.

[Declan]

The rolling hansard hasn't got that far.

[Rushen Spy]

8 minutes ago, Declan said:

The rolling hansard hasn't got that far.

You mean the one Rob's wife is involved in publishing?

[WTF]

9 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

You mean the one Rob's wife is involved in publishing?

how do you spell towel ?

Edited June 21, 2019 by WTF

[thesultanofsheight]

13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

They do though because Tynwald counts as a Court with its own powers and the Keys and LegCo also have such powers.  They have used them in the past - though it hasn't always gone well for them (think of the reactions to the cases of Samuel Norris and James Brown).  And any modern attempts to enforce such powers might well fall foul of the Human Rights Act, depending on the circumstances.  But most parliaments have some form of contempt proceedings, if for example potential witnesses refuse to turn up to give evidence to a Committee.

I understand that but you do have to go a good way back to see any examples (as you’ve shown) and those examples would pretty much not have much grounds to them today either.  Think I’ve seen DT post that claim before and I have no doubt it’s probably true. Which puts you at a loss to understand what motivation could possibly have been behind it. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[Declan]

Also it was found at the time that Brown was unlawfully imprisoned.

Personally, I don't know what Rob is supposed to have said and those chuntering about it are very vague. It's not in Hansard (although maybe when it catches up) and without knowing when in the Tynwald Proceedings the comment was made it is hard to find in a day's worth of gibbering.