Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Gladys]

39 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

But if someone links that to your user name on here...that's still a T&C breach yes?

That's right. 

[The Voice of Reason]

17 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

To use as an example say this current D.B.C employment tribunal case, the worker was found in favour yet has been publicly named as its a court document, as a result if you search his name on Google you’ll see numerous news articles and discussions including on here, it does seem unfair to me to have your name publicly spread like that, If that was someone significantly younger I wonder if it would have any impact on their future / their career? I mean for the sake of 5k I’d rather keep my name out of the public domain, which seems counter productive, it’s a shame we don’t have a right to privacy.

Has it not always been thus ? IOM newspapers have always listed property sales and until not long ago, well maybe a bit more long ago divorces (including details of those involved in adultery ) . Google has just made finding out stuff easier.

Say you are a murderer or a rapist and your case is reported in the paper. Do you have a right to privacy? Matter of degree I guess

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

To use as an example say this current D.B.C employment tribunal case, the worker was found in favour yet has been publicly named as its a court document, as a result if you search his name on Google you’ll see numerous news articles and discussions including on here, it does seem unfair to me to have your name publicly spread like that, If that was someone significantly younger I wonder if it would have any impact on their future / their career? I mean for the sake of 5k I’d rather keep my name out of the public domain, which seems counter productive, it’s a shame we don’t have a right to privacy.

Thing is legal proceedings are mostly open and public, and rightly so.  There is the right to be forgotten for stuff on the Internet. 

[Happier diner]

56 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Forums and their members seem to be a dying breed anyway, I’ll be amazed if this forum still exists in say 10 years time. It would only take one big legal case to wipe it off the internet and it’s certainly had a few close shaves in the past, perhaps without John Wright’s input it might not even exist now?

 

Well this forum seems to contradict that view. This and other forums are making a comeback. Like Phoenix. 

[Rhumsaa]

4 hours ago, rachomics said:

Personally, I would be happy to see this thread deleted completely. No-one likes to see a thread with their (real) name as the title and which contains personal opinions of testimony that put words in my mouth (both positively and negatively). 

methinks thou doth protest too much

[The Voice of Reason]

4 hours ago, rachomics said:

Personally, I would be happy to see this thread deleted completely. No-one likes to see a thread with their (real) name as the title and which contains personal opinions of testimony that put words in my mouth (both positively and negatively). 

Agreed. But your argument would be more convincing if you had not contributed to this thread with your own words, thus lending it more legitimacy 

[Chef Raekwon]

4 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Apart from a forum  being used as a platform for dissemination of false information, insults, and personal attacks etc

Ah you mean like the government briefings then?

[piebaps]

4 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

Thanks John, It’s not the answer I wanted but I’m glad its clarified things none the less. I only really post here as I don’t agree with the way Facebook uses people’s data.

Never mind facebook. On here you could get your browser tabbed. Then you'd be in trouble.

[Gladys]

34 minutes ago, piebaps said:

Never mind facebook. On here you could get your browser tabbed. Then you'd be in trouble.

Whatever happened to that lovely lady?

[piebaps]

10 hours ago, Gladys said:

Whatever happened to that lovely lady?

To be fair and with my sexist head on, she did have her good points.

[Non-Believer]

10 hours ago, Gladys said:

Whatever happened to that lovely lady?

I seem to remember seeing her name bandied on a news article for something or other only a few weeks ago but I can't remember what it was in conjunction with.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, piebaps said:

To be fair and with my sexist head on, she did have her good points.

Says the man who thinks a sandwich made of a pie is good fayre! 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Gladys

[Sheldon]

We refute Dr Glover's claims

All other contentions from both parties aside, I find this particular assertion from Ashford somewhat difficult to believe.

’I have granted the relevant officers who need to be involved in the timeline a week off over Easter. They have been doing in some cases 17-hour days, seven days a week without a break for 12 months'

[Cascarino]

9 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

We refute Dr Glover's claims

All other contentions from both parties aside, I find this particular assertion from Ashford somewhat difficult to believe.

’I have granted the relevant officers who need to be involved in the timeline a week off over Easter. They have been doing in some cases 17-hour days, seven days a week without a break for 12 months'

That did raise an eyebrow. Do we not have laws against that here?

[Andy Onchan]

17 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

We refute Dr Glover's claims

All other contentions from both parties aside, I find this particular assertion from Ashford somewhat difficult to believe.

’I have granted the relevant officers who need to be involved in the timeline a week off over Easter. They have been doing in some cases 17-hour days, seven days a week without a break for 12 months'

It's interesting to see HRH CM is steering clear of this debacle!