Rob Callister

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Is that what this odd statement is about?

For anyone who doesn't know where the trees under dispute are, they are in the grounds of Government House, surrounding a meadow. 

I was particularly amused by Callister's description of some of these miscreant trees as being 'self-seeded'.  As if the only trees that should actually be allowed to grow were those specifically planted by the Chief Minister for a publicity shot.  If Mother Nature tries to do her own thing she must be punished.

Which seems to be pretty much government policy.  In reply to Chris Thomas's more general question, Boot said:

From 1st July 2020 to 1st July 2021, 57 licences were issued to public bodies, including 31 to the Department of Infrastructure, 25 to local authorities and one to Manx Utilities. The vast majority of the licences issued under this legislation are valid for a period of 12 months from the date of their issue. One of these licences issued to the Department of Infrastructure was granted on the basis of an area rather than number of trees. The remaining licences included permission to remove a total of 263 trees, including 222 broadleaf trees, 40 conifers and one palm tree, all of which are protected or registered.

Naturally this didn't answer the question that was actually asked, which was for a list rather than just numbers though he eventually agreed to share a spreadsheet with Members, though not you will note the general public.

[The Voice of Reason]

13 minutes ago, Anyone said:

I asked him to fix it for me to win the lottery. I take it you practice being an asshole or does it come naturally.

I think you wasted his time.

To be be honest any right minded individual would realize why he could not assist.

[Anyone]

So you really think that’s what I asked him! Twat.

[buncha wankas]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

For anyone who doesn't know where the trees under dispute are, they are in the grounds of Government House, surrounding a meadow. 

I was particularly amused by Callister's description of some of these miscreant trees as being 'self-seeded'.  As if the only trees that should actually be allowed to grow were those specifically planted by the Chief Minister for a publicity shot.  If Mother Nature tries to do her own thing she must be punished.

Which seems to be pretty much government policy.  In reply to Chris Thomas's more general question, Boot said:

From 1st July 2020 to 1st July 2021, 57 licences were issued to public bodies, including 31 to the Department of Infrastructure, 25 to local authorities and one to Manx Utilities. The vast majority of the licences issued under this legislation are valid for a period of 12 months from the date of their issue. One of these licences issued to the Department of Infrastructure was granted on the basis of an area rather than number of trees. The remaining licences included permission to remove a total of 263 trees, including 222 broadleaf trees, 40 conifers and one palm tree, all of which are protected or registered.

Naturally this didn't answer the question that was actually asked, which was for a list rather than just numbers though he eventually agreed to share a spreadsheet with Members, though not you will note the general public.

He is such an idiot, how he made MHK I am bewildered.

 So there are trees there for hundreds years, nature reseeding for its future  replacements. People who bought houses in a Tree setting now just want the old trees to stay.  Looks like Mr Callister is as wise about green issues as he is about his role as an mHK not to publicly argue with constituent and read up on the job he got paid to do championing vulnerable Children.

why do people buy houses in woodland setting and then try to destroy it, to up the value of their house and gain open view and south facing garden. 
they will be grateful for the shade when the weather changes.

[Apple]

4 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If you want to criticize someone for not doing their job on a public forum, you really have to produce some sort of detail.

When did that rule come in ?

[Holte End]

3 hours ago, Apple said:

When did that rule come in ?

You also have to engage  lawyer services, a proof reader and  a compliance officer, Then you have to make it known to the world what you wanted an MHK to help you with, even if it is still on going or a non-disclosure agreement is inplace. Just so Beyond @VOICE OF REASON can say   " I think you wasted his time".

[Ham_N_Eggs]

6 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

He is such an idiot, how he made MHK I am bewildered

His blog as a Commissioner. He got his name out there and people knew who he was when they went to the polls ie not Quirky.  

[Hoolie]

8 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

My point being that the problem for these constituents is purely aesthetic. I get the it would be very annoying being surrounded by large trees, but I don't believe many of the residents bought their homes before those trees established themselves. 

 

Anyway, it is what it is and I don't blame the residents. But I know I won't be voting for him this time round, but he'll get back in due to lack of candidates 

[Declan]

20 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's worth reading the whole thing to get the effect of Callister as a sulky six-year-old complaining that another boy has said something mean about him in the playground, while everyone else finds it deeply embarrassing and Skelly simply moves on to the next item without any more discussion.

What Thomas said was - "Thirdly, can the Minister advise whether or not he has given permission to fell 40, 50, 60 trees in Government House in the next 12 months?"

So it was a question, not a factual statement. 

[WTF]

10 hours ago, Hoolie said:

I'd be interested to know:

 

 

 

C) what Mr callister is doing to address public areas of Onchan that affect the wider public (I.e. poor footpaths and overgrown hedgerows)

 

 

he's bought a strimmer apparently.

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, Holte End said:

You also have to engage  lawyer services, a proof reader and  a compliance officer, Then you have to make it known to the world what you wanted an MHK to help you with, even if it is still on going or a non-disclosure agreement is inplace. Just so Beyond @VOICE OF REASON can say   " I think you wasted his time".

Just a brief outline, not betraying any confidences or giving specifics would be useful to be able to judge if the criticism was valid.

Anyone can say my MHK is useless because he couldn’t help me. There are many occasions when they can’t through no fault of their own.

Surely that’s not being unreasonable

Edited August 13, 2021 by The Voice of Reason

[Declan]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Anyone can say my MHK is useless because he couldn’t help me. There are many occasions when they can’t through no fault of their own.

Surely that’s not being unreasonable

I think most people were able to assess anyone's point for what it was - anecdotal evidence from one person who could be literately anyone - and give it the appropriate weight without your help. You're becoming tiresome.

[Holte End]

5 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Just a brief outline, not betraying any confidences or giving specifics would be useful to be able to judge if the criticism was valid.

Anyone can say my MHK is useless because he couldn’t help me. There are many occasions when they can’t through no fault of their own.

Surely that’s not being unreasonable

It also true that anyone can say that he is a wonderful MHK, that help me without any giving specifics. But that seems to be OK.

I think people really wouldn't post, saying he is useless and didn't help me unless it was true, as there is no point, it doesn't achieve anything apart from showing dissatisfaction in an MHK.

You seem to take everything personally.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, Holte End said:

It also true that anyone can say that he is a wonderful MHK, that help me without any giving specifics. But that seems to be OK.

I think people really wouldn't post, saying he is useless and didn't help me unless it was true, as there is no point, it doesn't achieve anything apart from showing dissatisfaction in an MHK.

You seem to take everything personally.

 

OK put yourself in Mr Callisters shoes.

Someone comes on here and says you’re crap because you didn’t help them (regardless of whether or not you were in a position to do so)

You don’t know who it is because they are anonymous, you can’t identify the circumstances because it’s all cryptic. waffle. Therefore you can’t  make any rebuttal or point out any mitigating factors.

I don’t take it in personally as I am not Mr Callister. 

I just have a sense of fair play.

If I were to praise someone and say they were a good guy/guyess I would feel it incumbent on me to outline the circumstances which led me to that conclusion. ( The action they took, how they acted for me etc, whilst respecting any confidences etc).

The same should apply to any negative comments.

[Holte End]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

OK put yourself in Mr Callisters shoes.

Someone comes on here and says you’re crap because you didn’t help them (regardless of whether or not you were in a position to do so)

You don’t know who it is because they are anonymous, you can’t identify the circumstances because it’s all cryptic. waffle. Therefore you can’t  make any rebuttal or point out any mitigating factors.

I don’t take it in personally as I am not Mr Callister. 

I just have a sense of fair play.

If I were to praise someone and say they were a good guy/guyess I would feel it incumbent on me to outline the circumstances which led me to that conclusion. ( The action they took, how they acted for me etc, whilst respecting any confidences etc).

The same should apply to any negative comments.

I think he has only got small feet, so with size elevens it would be agony after a few seconds.

With your comments like"Especially for a medical director " on a different thread.

Your sense of fair play seems to be very one sided.