Zarley Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 19 hours ago, Roxanne said: Why would he refuse to cooperate with the enquiry when it was he who wanted it? Could it be that when he called for an enquiry he thought the request would be refused, and he could then use that refusal for another round of self-pitying victim role-playing? Then when they called his bluff and actually had an enquiry he petulantly refused to cooperate. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Well yes, exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KERED Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: He literally cannot help himself. A 2000 word statement on Facebook when told that he should not say anything to the media. "Rob The Gob" is an apt moniker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 40 minutes ago, Zarley said: Could it be that when he called for an enquiry he thought the request would be refused, and he could then use that refusal for another round of self-pitying victim role-playing? Then when they called his bluff and actually had an enquiry he petulantly refused to cooperate. I doubt he thought it would be refused, though it was actually Cannan who formally asked for the enquiry. I presume he thought it would vindicate him in some way - which is naïve, given that anything that said a Chief Minister was wrong to sack a Minister would undermine the whole way the Ministerial system operates on the Island. This isn't like Jersey where Ministers have to be individually approved and the States can decide install a different person if they want. Reducing the power of the CM would not go down well with the establishment. But Callister isn't the brightest soul, he may have assumed that everyone would think the same as he did. As far as I can see though, he did cooperate with the enquiry. What he didn't do was to keep quiet about it. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (and Rob being Rob it was never going to happen anyway). The standard response from the IOM Government is still that the plebs shouldn't bother themselves with important matters and just believe whatever they're told. Even when everything is falling apart. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Passing Time said: Before you jump on your high horse again, you do know men can be called witches as well... And were they, in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 hour ago, hissingsid said: Anyone who criticizes a woman is labeled a misogynist on Manx Forums. Gross exaggeration - unless you can prove this bold assertion? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holte End Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 @Rob Callister I have little understanding of the processes of Tynwald, Do you have to apologise on the finding of the committee, or do the other MHK's have to vote on the finding to make you apologise. If you refuse to make an apology, do the Tynwald have to vote to have you suspended or are you suspended because the committee finding are final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 8 minutes ago, Holte End said: @Rob Callister I have little understanding of the processes of Tynwald, Do you have to apologise on the finding of the committee, or do the other MHK's have to vote on the finding to make you apologise. If you refuse to make an apology, do the Tynwald have to vote to have you suspended or are you suspended because the committee finding are final. Methinks Tynwald considers and accepts the report. The action recommended then follows (apology). If Cue Ball refuses, the President has the authority to suspend him summarily. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: As far as I can see though, he did cooperate with the enquiry. From the report... Quote 11 Paragraph 44 of Appendix 3 12 Appendix 2 20. 4 That Mr Callister breached Tynwald standards of conduct by failing to co- operate with an investigation by the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee and in particular by commenting in public on matters under investigation in defiance of a clear instruction from the Committee not to do so. Ergo - he did not cooperate. Edited March 2, 2023 by Roxanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holte End Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 3 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said: Methinks Tynwald considers and accepts the report. The action recommended then follows (apology). If Cue Ball refuses, the President has the authority to suspend him summarily. Do the MHK's have to vote to accept the report, when it laid before them, or do they debate the report, then vote to accept. It is all a little confusing. Rob Callister seems to have been found guilty but the committee, but not by his peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 so if he refuses to apologise he gets suspended, how long is that suspension for? until he apologies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueey Lewis And The News Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 8 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: so if he refuses to apologise he gets suspended, how long is that suspension for? until he apologies? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36320452 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 28 minutes ago, Roxanne said: From the report... Quote 11 Paragraph 44 of Appendix 3 12 Appendix 2 That Mr Callister breached Tynwald standards of conduct by failing to co- operate with an investigation by the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee and in particular by commenting in public on matters under investigation in defiance of a clear instruction from the Committee not to do so. Ergo - he did not cooperate. We're not really disagreeing. The only example they give of 'non-cooperation' is, as I said, his failure to keep quiet. But there's no reason why he should except that they wanted him too - it wouldn't affect the progress of the investigation. He appears in other regards to have cooperated with it. This is basically politicians and bureaucrats complaining about a politician behaving like a politician. Which is both a bit hypocritical and rather undemocratic. "Don't worry your pretty little heads about that" is never a good thing to hear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 18 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36320452 Cut from the same cloth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 31 minutes ago, Holte End said: Do the MHK's have to vote to accept the report, when it laid before them, or do they debate the report, then vote to accept. It is all a little confusing. Rob Callister seems to have been found guilty but the committee, but not by his peers. It is a report by a Tynwald committee, so will be debated and voted on by the 'Council and Keys assembled' - not only MHKs. If Tynwald accepts it, then the recommendation is accepted and put into effect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.