Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?

[On The Level]

18 minutes ago, AOR said:

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.

I strongly believe that in this day and age with FOI and accountability there is no way that blatant breaches of the law can simply be swept under the carpet. That is not to say that, once something is investigated and progressed, that pressure isn't applied for it to simply dissipate, rather that the police cannot just say something isn't a crime when it very clearly is. 

[AOR]

43 minutes ago, On The Level said:

I strongly believe that in this day and age with FOI and accountability there is no way that blatant breaches of the law can simply be swept under the carpet. 

Yes they can. Quite easily. Happy to elaborate in a PM.

And there's plenty of room under that carpet.

[Mysteron]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

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.

 

I think Julie Corkill, wife of former Chief Minister Richard, would beg to differ...

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

Stalking, I would say is worrisome on its own and shouldn’t be taken lightly. You would think the police  would investigate or log it,  as the person doing it, may not be mentally stable if it’s true. They must know it won’t show her partner in a very good light either.

I would say as an independent lady as Dr Glover. She  should not have to tolerate this type of behaviour. If it was me I would go to a lawyer. 

In a later tweet (I hadn't seen it when I posted earlier) she said:

So she probably decide it was pointless.  You've got to remember the sort of people who do this sort of harassment aren't very logical to think with, so they aren't going to respond to this sort of action as most people would and things might actually be made worse.

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Mysteron said:

I think Julie Corkill, wife of former Chief Minister Richard, would beg to differ...

Well she clearly thought she was untouchable at the time and it was only when the whole thing came out in a civil court case that prosecution was commenced.  But even then there was no real investigation into the whole affair.

[TheTeapot]

TakeoverTV have been pretty quiet recently sadly. 

[thommo2010]

2 hours ago, AOR said:

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.

Yeah that's just nonsense

[ManxTaxPayer]

11 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

i like takeovertv , I did think they were collage students

Why, were they learning how to stick various different materials such as photographs and pieces of paper or fabric on to a backing?

[AOR]

26 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Yeah that's just nonsense

You were there on the inside, thommo. You should know.

PM me, why don't you. I'll be pleased to provide you with some details.

[Two-lane]

I had no idea this stuff was around. A result of being old, I suppose.

https://mobile.twitter.com/takeovertviom/status/1399267082617954309?cxt=HHwWioC51e__mOsmAAAA

 

[thommo2010]

31 minutes ago, AOR said:

You were there on the inside, thommo. You should know.

PM me, why don't you. I'll be pleased to provide you with some details.

Thanks for the offer but I'm really not that interested. 

[Wavey Davey]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

TakeoverTV have been pretty quiet recently sadly. 

They have no connection to Glover though as Ashfords bonkers squeeze seems to suggest. I’d guess they’re largely taking a break because it wasn’t very funny. 

[Ghost Ship]

4 hours 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? 

 

4 hours ago, Declan said:

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

I'm not familiar with Tynwald's standing orders and procedures, but wouldn't it be open for a suitably supported and seconded MHK to propose a motion that whichever SO is relevant to the matter of sub judice be temporarily suspended, thus allowing debate?

I can't see how anybody could credibly argue that a debate would influence whatever decision the Employment Tribunal would come to in respect of (1) what remedy to award Dr Ranson, and (2) any potential investigation into what documents failed to be disclosed.  As I see it, those are the only issues that could possibly be sub judice.

(But as I say, I'm not familiar with the procedures of Tynwald and I'm not familiar with Tynwald's interpretation of the meaning of sub judice... )

[Wavey Davey]

The weasel finally breaks cover and the papers decided not to allow comments because he’s so popular 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/i-wont-resign-david-ashford-says-547912

[buncha wankas]

30 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

The weasel finally breaks cover and the papers decided not to allow comments because he’s so popular 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/i-wont-resign-david-ashford-says-547912

Chris Thomas is like a rat looking for a rain pipe to run up to escape the no man’s land he lives in.   Trying to give himself credibility.