John Wright Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 6 minutes ago, asitis said: If any of the politicos are around from that time, it is they who should be issuing a full and heartfelt apology, as it is they who set the agenda into law ! What, from 1770’s when it was first legislated on IoM? 1880’s when it was extended? Quayle apologised for the politicians. Roberts has written a long self justificatory piece with a one line apology about policing methods. However, it is time to draw the line. I’ll quietly remember friends and clients caught up in the witch hunts, the entrapments, the knocks on the door, the family lives ruined by exposure through the courts & press. The guy I knew who had just won custody of his daughter, was picked up for wanking off another guy in a public loo cubicle and was told by investigating interviewing officers ( in the days before duty advocates ) that they would tell his ex, and social services, and ensure he lost his child. First thing he did on release was to get some hose pipe, drive to the Point of Ayre, and kill himself in his car. Thats what I’ll remember, and grieve for all those lost and damaged. No apology will change that. I, for one, will never forget them. 8 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted August 8, 2022 Author Share Posted August 8, 2022 34 minutes ago, John Wright said: What, from 1770’s when it was first legislated on IoM? 1880’s when it was extended? Quayle apologised for the politicians. Roberts has written a long self justificatory piece with a one line apology about policing methods. However, it is time to draw the line. I’ll quietly remember friends and clients caught up in the witch hunts, the entrapments, the knocks on the door, the family lives ruined by exposure through the courts & press. The guy I knew who had just won custody of his daughter, was picked up for wanking off another guy in a public loo cubicle and was told by investigating interviewing officers ( in the days before duty advocates ) that they would tell his ex, and social services, and ensure he lost his child. First thing he did on release was to get some hose pipe, drive to the Point of Ayre, and kill himself in his car. Thats what I’ll remember, and grieve for all those lost and damaged. No apology will change that. I, for one, will never forget them. Horrible and bullying antics, to ‘uphold Tynwalds wishes’, which destroyed lives. A politically approved letter. You are right it was justifificatory and to me came across a letter he was told, had to be written before his retirement. Rather than write a simple ‘less is more’ letter apologising wholeheartedly and wholesomely, with a bit of good grace, it was 5 pages of committee and politicos approved waffle. Gary Roberts may not have had or not had much experience of being involved in arresting people involved, but he will be aware of the ‘officers’ involved, the rumours and the stories (as described by JW). If this apology was wholesomely heartfelt and simple, with no justification made, the line would be drawn. Instead this saga will run, and I’m sure next year or the year after someone will demand a ‘proper apology’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestboy Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 (edited) JW is right - “it’s time to draw the line”. Edited August 8, 2022 by forestboy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 I welcome Gary's letter but a more meaningful apology would be a full and open Tynwald Inquiry, chaired by someone truly independent, that investigated what really went on. It would have to be a lot more serious and thorough than the joke that was the Knottfield whitewash. So it won't happen. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwhite Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 I probably shouldn't be surprised but pretty unequivocal opposition to the new hate speech laws on The Mannin Line today. As long as it's done right and there is a definition of 'hate speech' I don't see what anyone would have an issue with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandits Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 It’s all bollocks though as most callers said today. This clip is one of the most ridiculous yet scary things you’ll see in a while and was a catalyst for the police force concerned to stop running what were basically re-education classes for “offenders” https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-police-british-army-veteran-arrested-anti-lgbtq-social-media-post-caused-anxiety-video “You are being arrested as something you said on social media has caused someone anxiety” How can the police officer even say that with a straight face? It’s literally pathetic. What happened next is that to avoid a fixed penalty being issued and the crime recorded the man was offered a space on a re-education programme no doubt run by a load of sad wokes to teach him how not to cause anxiety to people in the future. This is straight out of 1984 and not that far away from the Chinese or Korean re-education centres people end up in for expressing opinions the state doesn’t like. I must say if an officer warned me that something I had posted had caused someone anxiety my initial reaction works be - so f**king what? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 8 minutes ago, Bandits said: It’s all bollocks though as most callers said today. This clip is one of the most ridiculous yet scary things you’ll see in a while and was a catalyst for the police force concerned to stop running what were basically re-education classes for “offenders” https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-police-british-army-veteran-arrested-anti-lgbtq-social-media-post-caused-anxiety-video “You are being arrested as something you said on social media has caused someone anxiety” How can the police officer even say that with a straight face? It’s literally pathetic. What happened next is that to avoid a fixed penalty being issued and the crime recorded the man was offered a space on a re-education programme no doubt run by a load of sad wokes to teach him how not to cause anxiety to people in the future. This is straight out of 1984 and not that far away from the Chinese or Korean re-education centres people end up in for expressing opinions the state doesn’t like. I must say if an officer warned me that something I had posted had caused someone anxiety my initial reaction works be - so f**king what? Except it’s staged by right wing twit Lawrence Fox, who originally posted the offending video ( a swastika in LGBT colours ). It’s Fox trolling and trouble causing. Nothing new. If he hadn’t turned up and provoked the guy would have chatted to the police, the matter would have been resolved. Words, which cause distress, are a criminal offence, affray, under the public order act. It’s why protesters and strikers aren’t allowed to use a porcine noun to refer to the police any more. Apparently that has the police upset. Of course, that indicates the difficulty of drawing the line. But a swastika rainbow given the Holocaust, is pretty provocative and offensive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwhite Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 1 hour ago, Bandits said: It’s all bollocks though as most callers said today. This clip is one of the most ridiculous yet scary things you’ll see in a while and was a catalyst for the police force concerned to stop running what were basically re-education classes for “offenders” https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-police-british-army-veteran-arrested-anti-lgbtq-social-media-post-caused-anxiety-video “You are being arrested as something you said on social media has caused someone anxiety” How can the police officer even say that with a straight face? It’s literally pathetic. What happened next is that to avoid a fixed penalty being issued and the crime recorded the man was offered a space on a re-education programme no doubt run by a load of sad wokes to teach him how not to cause anxiety to people in the future. This is straight out of 1984 and not that far away from the Chinese or Korean re-education centres people end up in for expressing opinions the state doesn’t like. I must say if an officer warned me that something I had posted had caused someone anxiety my initial reaction works be - so f**king what? Don't agree. As I said if it's done right and the offence is correctly defined, to the extent that the public are fully protected regardless of which community group you may wish to belong to, then why would anyone be against that? I honestly can't see the argument other than people wish to be able to say horrible things without consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 1 hour ago, John Wright said: Except it’s staged by right wing twit Lawrence Fox, who originally posted the offending video ( a swastika in LGBT colours ). It’s Fox trolling and trouble causing. Nothing new. If he hadn’t turned up and provoked the guy would have chatted to the police, the matter would have been resolved. Words, which cause distress, are a criminal offence, affray, under the public order act. It’s why protesters and strikers aren’t allowed to use a porcine noun to refer to the police any more. Apparently that has the police upset. Of course, that indicates the difficulty of drawing the line. But a swastika rainbow given the Holocaust, is pretty provocative and offensive. Ah Yes Lawrence Fox. If I remember his new career started when he got into trouble for saying something relatively innocuous which the woke people got wound up about. He attracted a lot of popular support at that time. I can’t remember what he said about whom but I remember thinking to myself that’s nothing for anyone to get upset about. However since then he has used this as a platform to try and become a cult hero. Pulling silly stunts, forming a political party and running for mayor of London. And now the swastika/LGBT nonsense. In doing so he has alienated those who thought he was right to stand up to this workery and attracted entirely the wrong sort who are always looking for a fight. One morning I (completely by accident, I swear) caught him on the Jeremy Vine show having an argument with Yasmin Ali Brown (sp?) which he came across as a completely spoilt privileged public schoolboy. Mind you I’ve not got much time for her either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandits Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 1 hour ago, jackwhite said: i honestly can't see the argument other than people wish to be able to say horrible things without consequences. It’s called free speech. There are already enough laws around libel and slander and racism etc. To actually be arrested for “causing someone anxiety” by making a post on social media is frankly ridiculous. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 Obviously those saying words hurt have never had a punch in the face. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 What do they say about 'hard cases make bad law' ? The attempt to frame laws around anxiety and emotional reactions which can't be quantified or measured will only lead to bad law - unworkable, illogical and illiberal. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandits Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 21 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said: What do they say about 'hard cases make bad law' ? The attempt to frame laws around anxiety and emotional reactions which can't be quantified or measured will only lead to bad law - unworkable, illogical and illiberal. I completely agree. Just because someone is offended or made “anxious” by something doesn’t mean it’s a crime, and to hurt someone’s feelings most certainly shouldn’t be a crime. We seem to now be part of a surveillance society where peoples opinions are being policed and by expressing the wrong opinion you can be brought to task and bullied into compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwhite Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 4 hours ago, Bandits said: It’s called free speech. There are already enough laws around libel and slander and racism etc. To actually be arrested for “causing someone anxiety” by making a post on social media is frankly ridiculous. So how many convictions have we had on the isle of man for hate speech? I think you'll find those stats either don't exist because existing law doesn't cover it. Again if you define what is considered hate speech, it won't be a problem. What do you really fear saying that you'll be arrested for that's considered acceptable currently? 2 hours ago, Shake me up Judy said: What do they say about 'hard cases make bad law' ? The attempt to frame laws around anxiety and emotional reactions which can't be quantified or measured will only lead to bad law - unworkable, illogical and illiberal. As I've said above, as long as they define the type of speech, there won't be an issue. I'm going to say it's around things that people would consider unacceptable at the moment, if not necessarily punishable by law. 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.