Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?

[forestboy]

1 minute ago, cissolt said:

Honesty and transparency are at the heart of this administration apparently as regurgitated by Dr Alex in Tynwald.

Disappointing.

He’s having a laugh and taking the GMP as mugs. 

[The Phantom]

12 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Unless you're in primary school I would say don't shout any insults 

Usually I'd agree with you.  But the least entertaining child of the Adams Family is still walking around thinking he had no case to answer, as well as being a world leading expert in medical and financial matters. 

I think he needs to fully realise the disdain that most of us actually have for him. 

[2112]

8 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Usually I'd agree with you.  But the least entertaining child of the Adams Family is still walking around thinking he had no case to answer, as well as being a world leading expert in medical and financial matters. 

I think he needs to fully realise the disdain that most of us actually have for him. 

Eventually he may be a world leading expert on judicial matters, if he fingered for all the shenanigans going on recently.

[2112]

14 minutes ago, Declan said:

So you expect to be able to call your MHK and speak to them?

Actually I do. 

[Roger Mexico]

11 minutes ago, 2112 said:

At least you can speak to her, she has published her contact details. I can speak to @Stu Petersas his contact details are published, and on the Tynwald website. JPW has her contact details as c/o the Clerk of Tynwald. Not approachable, I am not playing snail mail or email to contact my elected representative within an issue. 

Poole-Wilson's home address and mobile number are actually on the Tynwald page of the phone book.  There's also a 'landline' type number but I suspect that is an 'official/office' phone one rather than her actual home and probably better for leaving messages than speaking.

[Declan]

6 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Actually I do. 

Really? It wouldn't occur to me to do that, not out of the blue anyway. Different generations I guess.

[2112]

The look on Ashfords face when MHKs are asking CM Cannan is an absolute picture. Unfortunately no matter how many questions are asked, he isn’t bothered, there is no shame. CM Cannan witters on about getting on with the job ……….. hard working families ………… the cost of living. Nothing mentioned about the great Manx public and how he intends to address the cost of living either.

[Kopek]

Be fair to Ashford, he'll have spent the weekend making up his...I mean writing his answers to today's questions!

5pm statement???

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

I don't believe any MHK or MLC is 'frightened' as you suggest. But if the presiding officer tells you you can't discuss the detail of a tribunal because of a sub-judice Standing Order, it's just wasting your time to try, as a couple of members found out. Whether or not it should be sub-judice is a matter for debate, but apparently the SO has been in place for a while.

Not really.  If you look at the definition of sub judice in Tynwald Standing Orders:

“sub judice” includes any civil case in which papers for the commencement of proceedings have been filed in the office of any court or tribunal, whether or not they have been served on or communicated to the other party or any criminal case where a person has been charged or summoned to appear at court. A case will remain sub judice until it is discontinued, or judgment has been or verdict and sentence have been delivered and until the time for appealing has expired; it will continue to be sub judice after papers for the commencement of any appeal have been lodged until judgment or discontinuance.

This is linked to a footnote say: Definition of “sub judice” inserted 17th November 2009.  So it's hardly like it dates back to King Orry.  Like so many Tynwald 'traditions' it seems to be a recent invention to suit those in charge and prevent the plebs raising any awkward questions.

So while other places may have parliamentary rules that mean things can be said more freely inside parliament than outside, on the Isle of Man it's the opposite.  Though presumably you are entitled to speak your mind about such matters outside the Chamber.

As has already been frequently pointed out such tribunals are not usually seen as covered by sub judice elsewhere and equally appeals from civil and criminal cases are not usually included either.  The reason in both situations is that the Tribunal Panel members and Appeal Court judges are seen as unlikely to be swayed by public opinion and the media.  So the Manx rule is an insult to those groups as well.

An appeal from a tribunal should be doubly exempt and the 'rule' is clearly only designed to protect various parts of the bureaucracy when judicial process have exposed their wrongdoings.  It also means there is an incentive to drag every judicial process out for as long (and so expensively) as possible.

Tynwald members have been conned into making themselves eunuchs by this ridiculous rule and it needs to be amended to match the usual definitions.  Though it's also worth pointing out that the Standing Orders give the President the 'discretion' to allow any questions or motions that he wants, irrespective of the rule.  Skelly didn't, funny that.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

3 hours ago, Newsdesk said:

It does in the UK. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTB_v._News_Group_Newspapers_Ltd.

The Ryan Giggs case has mentioned on the floor of the UK Parliament by John Hemmings MP when a gagging order was in place to protect proceedings. 

Someone's probably already mentioned this but it's in standing orders that they can't.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Not really.  If you look at the definition of sub judice in Tynwald Standing Orders:

“sub judice” includes any civil case in which papers for the commencement of proceedings have been filed in the office of any court or tribunal, whether or not they have been served on or communicated to the other party or any criminal case where a person has been charged or summoned to appear at court. A case will remain sub judice until it is discontinued, or judgment has been or verdict and sentence have been delivered and until the time for appealing has expired; it will continue to be sub judice after papers for the commencement of any appeal have been lodged until judgment or discontinuance.

This is linked to a footnote say: Definition of “sub judice” inserted 17th November 2009.  So it's hardly like it dates back to King Orry.  Like so many Tynwald 'traditions' it seems to be a recent invention to suit those in charge and prevent the plebs raising any awkward questions.

So while other places may have parliamentary rules that mean things can be said more freely inside parliament than outside, on the Isle of Man it's the opposite.  Though presumably you are entitled to speak your mind about such matters outside the Chamber.

As has already been frequently pointed out such tribunals are not usually seen as covered by sub judice elsewhere and equally appeals from civil and criminal cases are not usually included either.  The reason in both situations is that the Tribunal Panel members and Appeal Court judges are seen as unlikely to be swayed by public opinion and the media.  So the Manx rule is an insult to those groups as well.

An appeal from a tribunal should be doubly exempt and the 'rule' is clearly only designed to protect various parts of the bureaucracy when judicial process have exposed their wrongdoings.  It also means there is an incentive to drag every judicial process out for as long (and so expensively) as possible.

Tynwald members have been conned into making themselves eunuchs by this ridiculous rule and it needs to be amended to match the usual definitions.  Though it's also worth pointing out that the Standing Orders give the President the 'discretion' to allow any questions or motions that he wants, irrespective of the rule.  Skelly didn't, funny that.

If Members really had any nounce about then they could have moved that the standing order relating to sub judice be suspended.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

56 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Honesty and transparency are at the heart of this administration apparently as regurgitated by Dr Alex in Tynwald.

Disappointing.

I guess this is another Council of Ministers that'll be binned at the next election.

[ubbiali]

and wrong

and oh so predictable and laughable

and just plain daft

[thommo2010]

At least if nothing else its given people something to talk about

[TheTeapot]

I'll take a pitchfork @slinkydevil thanks.