Rob Callister

[thesultanofsheight]

1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Ask your MHK to raise it with the Tynwald Standards Committee and if Rob Callister just happens to be one of your MHK's then you can report it to Julie Edge who happens to be on the Committee.

Good point. Rest assured I will be getting several people to raise it with various members of the committee now you have flagged it. It is fundamentally wrong in so many ways to allow people to buy targeted ads and worse still if taxpayer funded expenses money is paying for them - and I’m sure most other MHKs will already see how this is fundamentally wrong.

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Why don't you raise it yourself?

I guess Callister can spend his money how he likes.  Also, I'm not sure how you see it as being advantageous to him anyway.  You think his blog is awful and just irritates you and others.  So if anything paying for it via FB should be a good thing because he'll be hanging himself really.

[thesultanofsheight]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Why don't you raise it yourself?

I guess Callister can spend his money how he likes.  Also, I'm not sure how you see it as being advantageous to him anyway.  You think his blog is awful and just irritates you and others.  So if anything paying for it via FB should be a good thing because he'll be hanging himself really.

Oh great a new account. 

I will be raising the wider issue of paid for content with most of the above on that committee. I will also be getting other people to do the same thing as well. This isn’t about Callister specifically as you claim - but as usual his thick online antics seem to raise clear conduct and ethical issues that then should be discussed more widely. Quayle is loaded, so is Boot, so is Cannan - do we really think it’s acceptable that they should be able to buy a shit load of paid for targeted social media content to maintain a positive public profile when in office? I’m sure even they see the wider issues with this which is just wrong on all levels because they are sane sensible people who know where lines of acceptable behaviour should exist. Even outside of elections disclosure of spend should be a minimum requirement but also rules should apply in relation to paid for content for MHKs. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[John Wright]

There already is a spending limit. It’s £2000 plus 50p per voter on the register, from the minute you declare your candidature.

[John Wright]

There is now a limit on the amount that can be spent on a campaign from the moment a candidate makes a public declaration, the maximum amount being £2000 plus 50p for each registered elector in the relevant constituency. As an estimate, the limit may equate to £4500 to £5000, however the exact limit for each constituency will not be known until the publication of the electoral register [ immediately before the election date ]
Election expenses are any expenses incurred by a candidate (or prospective candidate) to promote the chances of his or her election, or to prejudice the chances of another. Examples of such expenses are the costs of:
 Manifestos, leaflets or calling cards
 Posters or banners
 Car stickers, rosettes or balloons
 Creation of a website and
 Newspaper adverts.
Expenses can be either direct (costs paid directly by the candidate), or notional (costs covered by another individual or company).

[thesultanofsheight]

25 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There is now a limit on the amount that can be spent on a campaign from the moment a candidate makes a public declaration, the maximum amount being £2000 plus 50p for each registered elector in the relevant constituency.

Thanks John that’s really helpful - and that’s from the moment candidature is declared but we’re not in election time yet so what’s to stop a stupid amount being spent on expenses now in advance to significantly boost profile before the next election corridor? I think it’s still unfair for any candidate to be buying targeted social media ads to deliberately enhance their social media profile at any time. You have to question for what purpose is it being done, how much is it costing, and is it being paid by the taxpayer? 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

That's just paranoid.

The one thing ANY MHK can do profile wise any time they want is boost it because they have access the all forms of media outlet anytime they want to say something.  You don't need Facebook. 

To suggest Callister (or anyone for that matter) obtains some sort of advantage is fanciful.  Callister wont get elected again based on him spunking money to Facebook.

Anyway you cant farm granny's on Facebook.  That's face to face stuff which is what they should all be doing at a base level.  Then of course delivering on their promises.

Also, I'm not sure it's your call to be judging what anyone spends their money on.  Anyone can do what he is doing.   Or piss their spare money up down the pub.  Or spend it on their kids.  You can actually have far more internet and social media influence for next to nothing with a bit of savvy.  

Of course the last thing you'll want to see is a new account on here.  Challenging your sniping.

[thesultanofsheight]

3 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

That's just paranoid.

Of course the last thing you'll want to see is a new account on here.  Challenging your sniping.

1. Really. As a new account you are qualified to spot paranoia are you? 

2. Indeed as from the deliberate bickering and antagonism displayed already you’re not really new account are you? 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[TheTeapot]

Think I'll skin up, this could go on a while...

[John Wright]

20 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Thanks John that’s really helpful - and that’s from the moment candidature is declared but we’re not in election time yet so what’s to stop a stupid amount being spent on expenses now in advance to significantly boost profile before the next election corridor? I think it’s still unfair for any candidate to be buying targeted social media ads to deliberately enhance their social media profile at any time. You have to question for what purpose is it being done, how much is it costing, and is it being paid by the taxpayer? 

But anyone can do it between elections. And no it isn’t being paid for by taxpayers, at least no directly.

Whats the difference between a sitting MHK paying out of his salary or the additional lump sum towards expenses, or a public employee out of his salary/wages, or me out of what I receive out of legal aid or mobility allowance?

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

1. Really. As a new account you are qualified to spot paranoia are you? 

2. Indeed as from the deliberate bickering and antagonism displayed already you’re not really new account are you? 

Is that an accusation of sock puppetry?

[thesultanofsheight]

10 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But anyone can do it between elections. And no it isn’t being paid for by taxpayers, at least no directly.

Whats the difference between a sitting MHK paying out of his salary or the additional lump sum towards expenses, or a public employee out of his salary/wages, or me out of what I receive out of legal aid or mobility allowance?

Thats what I thought. Thanks. Although I’d argue on the second point as their salary and expenses are being paid by us. If a good chunk of that is being used to buy into an enhanced media profile to sell back to those currently funding your lifestyle then personally I think that is highly questionable/wrong - for any sitting MHK - and that the amount spent should be required to be publicly declared. That’s all I’m saying, 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[thesultanofsheight]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Is that an accusation of sock puppetry?

No it isn’t clearly. My understanding is that sock puppetry is having two or more accounts at the same time - not coming back with a new account having been banned under an old one. 

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

No it isn’t clearly. My understanding is that sock puppetry is having two or more accounts at the same time - not coming back with a new account having been banned under an old one. 

Please report, using report function, with details, moderators can then investigate. 

It amounts to the same thing in either scenario, and,  to stop paranoid accusations with no foundation getting out of hand, can carry a suspension.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

I've looked at the forum for quite a while and never posted.  I take it being a new poster is allowed?

You don't need to examine many of your posts to understand your agenda/angle.

You don't like challenge.  Which isn't the best approach when you post in the manner you do.

John Wright also seems to think you are wrong.  Largely because you are.

Just because people work for the government in some capacity doesn't make their spending habits beholden to us as taxpayers.  Plenty of government employees smoke, eat shite food, waste money etc.  Are you suggesting we opine on what they spend on too?

As far as Callister goes - he's about 50, no kids, and I assume with his wife's salary they are probably a 100k per annum household. With no kids.  He rarely seems to drink. Doesn't smoke to my knowledge.  So probably has disposable.  It's up to him what he does with it surely?