Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?

[HiVibes]

1 hour ago, Annoymouse said:

What about her ‘hacked’ Twitter account? Whatever way you looked at it that was an utter shit show and cast a shadow of doubt on everything for me.

To be fair, if DHSC could hack her twitter account they probably would have.

Edited May 19, 2022 by HiVibes

[StrangeBrew]

21 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

To be fair, if DHSC could hack her twitter account they probably would have.

I followed that Twitter meltdown as it unfolded. There is no way anyone at DHSC, or indeed David Ashford’s girlfriend, is sophisticated enough to both hack her Twitter account and exactly mirror her tweeting pattern, whilst also knowing the kind of personal info she was tweeting. 
So I too take the hacking story with a massive pinch of salt.

 

For the sake of balance, I do think it’s quite plausible that there has been some stalking/harassing by the person Dr Glover has named.  
 

And I’d be very disappointed if she has really been told by a police officer that they wouldn’t investigate even if she put flaming dogshit through the door. That seems totally bizarre.

Edited May 19, 2022 by StrangeBrew

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, Josem said:

That substantive issue, where I disagreed deeply with Ashford at the time, is entirely separate from the decent way to handle that disagreement today. Some people - on this forum and elsewhere - have made various allegations of criminality. Such allegations of criminal behaviour are serious. They're serious to people who are victims of crime. They're serious to people who are wrongly accused of crime. That's why our civilisation has created a variety of institutions to properly investigate such allegations. Those institutions are called "the police" and "the court system". Those institutions do not include social media websites. Making such allegations in this public forum are morally wrong and practically wrong.

Seems you only open your mouth to change feet

[Wavey Davey]

1 hour ago, Josem said:

That substantive issue, where I disagreed deeply with Ashford at the time, is entirely separate from the decent way to handle that disagreement today. Some people - on this forum and elsewhere - have made various allegations of criminality. Such allegations of criminal behaviour are serious. They're serious to people who are victims of crime. They're serious to people who are wrongly accused of crime. That's why our civilisation has created a variety of institutions to properly investigate such allegations. Those institutions are called "the police" and "the court system". Those institutions do not include social media websites. Making such allegations in this public forum are morally wrong and practically wrong.

Given that she was one of your proposers at the election that’s hardly an unbiased statement is it in reality? Glover has claimed she’s already got the police involved so if her claims are false then she’s in trouble. Her last claims of being hacked were literally bullshit given the content posted. However, it’s easy to understand how someone who believed they were being stalked could resort to that sort of rubbish argument. There have been a lot of weird mental health aspects creeping out of the pandemic. Probably made worse if you’ve been shafted by what is clearly a nasty, bullying, cesspit of vipers where you probably don’t trust anyone and think they’re all out to get you.

Those sort of working environments play havoc with peoples mental health and actually a lot of those people are such pathetic and despicable cunts with so little to occupy their time during the day that the harassment and bullying doesn’t even stop after you leave the organization because as long as your still on the Island there are ways they can still make your life hell. 

[AOR]

I would ask, have you ever been bullied? Or more likely, have you ever been part of the gang - one of the big boys and big girls that gang up to bully another. A person will do anything to belong, and not be bullied themselves. Whatever it takes.

I have to say, at various times I have been on both sides of the scenario, from the schoolyard right through to the boardroom.

It's nasty whichever way you look at it, with nothing off the table, and an Island such as ours is highly susceptible to that environment.

[Roger Mexico]

9 minutes ago, quilp said:

So where does sub-judice apply and where does it not?

Technically not till someone has been charged and of course it becomes a matter of public record at that point and people can refer to the fact that charges have been brought and anything that is said in court, even though sub judice means that more details can't be given.

There's some uncertainty over what information can be given out if someone has been investigated but not charged, following the Bloomberg judgement a few months ago.  But this is a matter of privacy rights rather than sub judice.

It can't be emphasised too much that the definition of sub judice in Tynwald Standing Orders is a comparatively recent invention, designed to protect the actions of the government from parliamentary scrutiny and has nothing to do with how it operates outside the Chamber.

[Declan]

2 hours ago, Josem said:

That substantive issue, where I disagreed deeply with Ashford at the time, is entirely separate from the decent way to handle that disagreement today. Some people - on this forum and elsewhere - have made various allegations of criminality. Such allegations of criminal behaviour are serious. They're serious to people who are victims of crime. They're serious to people who are wrongly accused of crime. That's why our civilisation has created a variety of institutions to properly investigate such allegations. Those institutions are called "the police" and "the court system". Those institutions do not include social media websites. Making such allegations in this public forum are morally wrong and practically wrong.

You're mischaracterising the situation to shut down discussion of your friend's reported conduct. Dr Glover hasn't alleged criminal harassment, in fact makes clear the police don't think a criminal act has happened. You're the only one who's mentioned criminality.

[Newsdesk]

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It can't be emphasised too much that the definition of sub judice in Tynwald Standing Orders is a comparatively recent invention, designed to protect the actions of the government from parliamentary scrutiny and has nothing to do with how it operates outside the Chamber.

Looking at ours from something posted elsewhere it doesn’t even seem to be necessary for the court or tribunal papers to have actually been served on the future defendant. Which seems literally insane. Just lodged with the court or tribunal. Who would even know in that situation if the person being served hasn’t even physically been served? It just looks like free license to shut down discussion of anything. It’s the sort of rule you’d expect to see in Putins Duma. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Newsdesk
Grammar

[Gladys]

The more appropriate question is what is the effect if a standing order is ignored as debate in these circumstances is surely in the public interest? 

[Declan]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The more appropriate question is what is the effect if a standing order is ignored as debate in these circumstances is surely in the public interest? 

Or if the President had widened the debate to include the tribunal findings apart from the non-disclosure issue. It is his discretion. 

[StrangeBrew]

21 minutes ago, Declan said:

You're mischaracterising the situation to shut down discussion of your friend's reported conduct. Dr Glover hasn't alleged criminal harassment, in fact makes clear the police don't think a criminal act has happened. You're the only one who's mentioned criminality.

I think Dr Glover does believe that it’s criminal harassment- she said it included death threats - hence reporting it to the police. She says the police have refused to investigate because of who her partner is - and that they wouldn’t even investigate if flaming dogshit was posted through her letterbox. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Manx17 said:

 That is just hearsay, there would be no way a police officer would say that. She can go to a law firm if she is a hundred per cent sure that is the person she is claiming it to be and send them a letter notifying them their harassment won’t be tolerated.

That's not what hearsay means.  It would be hearsay if it had been said to another person and she was then reporting it, but if it was said directly to her, then it's not hearsay.  And there would be little point in sending a lawyer's letter if the police had made it clear that they felt unable to enforce the law - it might just make things worse.

[AOR]

9 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

No one is above the law. 

Not true. Not true at all. On the Isle of Man there are protected species who are well protected. And the thin blue line knows when to thicken and close in.

It all depends on who you are and who you know and what you know about who you know etc.

[Roger Mexico]

17 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

I  can not see a police officer stating we are doing nothing because of who her partner is. No one is above the law. Going to a lawyer’s can help, it can either nip it in the bud or if it escalated with them sending death threats , it would all be logged. Shouting about it on Twitter does nothing but make talk.

It's not just about who her partner is.  According to a later tweet it's not just about who you are, it's because the law isn't fit for purpose:

Of course if it's difficult to prove that something is harassment anyway, they're going to be even less keen to investigate and prosecute if someone influential is involved.

We've actually seen this before with cases involving electronic communication.  There's really been no attempt to update legislation and there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm either - file under "too much like hard work".

[Declan]

I don't think the  "that and she's the partner..." etc is a quote from the cop, just an inference Rachel has drawn. 

I do know that the police were ineffective when a colleague's family were victims of a harassment campaign.