More uselessness from DBC

[Roger Mexico]

3 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

All decisions of the Council will be made in accordance with the following principles ... (b) decisions being taken on the basis of due consultation ... [etc.]"

On Monday, Wells stated that no public consultation was required on this particular issue.

Because 'due consultation' doesn't mean a full public consultation in every case.  Indeed I'm not sure that DBC has a formal procedure to do such a thing.  As has already been pointed out there were limited consultations that did take place and some on here participated.

You're not Humpty Dumpty.  Words aren't going mean what you want them to, just because you think you're all-knowing.

[woolley]

14 minutes ago, code99 said:

One can’t help but think that this is a perfect case to argue the amalgamation of the IoM LAs into a single authority. 

Sensational idea because surely this episode is a wonderful advert for having an expensive train wreck bureaucracy like DBC taking over from our small 3 men and a dog outfits around the Island. If you'll pardon my saying so, just sod off. We'll stick with what we've got thanks.

[Viddy well]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because 'due consultation' doesn't mean a full public consultation in every case.  Indeed I'm not sure that DBC has a formal procedure to do such a thing.  As has already been pointed out there were limited consultations that did take place and some on here participated.

You're not Humpty Dumpty.  Words aren't going mean what you want them to, just because you think you're all-knowing.

You're correct. I am not Humpty Dumpty; I think that needed to be clarified, so thanks.

I'm definitely not all-knowing. Can I ask you what you think the words in the DBC constitution were angling at when the words "due consultation" were inserted?

Edit: I'd also be interested in the criteria you consider apply when deciding to consult or not, when you state, "doesn't mean a full public consultation in every case?"

Edit: And if they decided to consult, why was it only a "limited" consultation?

Edited December 15, 2022 by Viddy well

[Tailless]

2 hours ago, Inky said:

Fantasist Frank 

This is the story of an unaccountable man on an unaccountable council who really is only there to try to build up an image for himself so that he can stand for Tynwald next time round. He doesn’t care about the people of Douglas and he only really cares about his image as a social media crusader who lives his life on his phone posting shit in an almost obsessional way about how great he is. It’s the story of a man even more delusional and obsessed with power than fellow south Douglas political failure and general all round political clown Michael Josem. Which may well explain why he publicly holds Josem in such disregard and as a result devotes so much of his time online obsessionally rubbishing everything he does and making sure that everyone hears about it. I’d suggest that really he is envious of his Australian counterpart and runner up for most failed and ridiculous politician in Manx history. Because one day he might well beat him into the house of Keys and that would be embarrassing. 

The real master stroke though is his malevolent influence over IOM social media. Even to the point that many of the legitimate posters on the Douglas Refuse Collection Facebook page have found themselves reported to Facebook and had their accounts locked as alleged spammers. Such is the council he sits on’s obsessional attention to detail when attacking the people who pay their rates. In addition they are now paying for targeted ads too with ratepayers money in order to target media content to attempt to directly discredit some of the claims publicly made by residents. This isn’t therefore the behaviour of normal people. It’s the behaviour of a monstrously out of control despotic cabal of already out of control despots in an attempt to cover their arses because if it all blows up any further his, Watsons & Bentley’s political aspirations in Keys next time round will go up in smoke. So it’s a literal coven of ass covering and general covert activity directed at some of the very people who keep town hall funded. 

No only content with manipulating social media this also appears to be a person who seems happy to abuse their own position as a moderator of a public forum by playing a very political game of pretending they didn’t delete posts and posters but that a new admin they hurriedly appointed in five minutes did instead. It’s all a big mistake. How awful. Well if someone like Josem had done that it would all be plastered all over the same forum, or if someone like Rob Callister or David Quirk did something on social media that looked crooked or untoward it would be mentioned for pages and pages and pages. But when honest Frank gets accused of something his whole forum goes into meltdown and everything has to disappear pronto. It smacks of pure media manipulation in true Rupert Murdoch fashion. Nothing less. 

There are resignations being sought on Douglas Council and he and Wells should be top of the list. They have no credible public support and achieved the grand total of a full Eurovision round of ‘null points’ at the polls. Yet they lord it over the public and actively spend their time pursuing campaigns against the very people they are supposed to represent. The press may well want to spare the corporations embarrassment for a shocking public display this week but many residents don’t. They put on an awful display that would have made the grottiest and most corrupt banana republic or morally bankrupt communist cesspit look good in comparison. A shameful public display of disinterest and appalling arrogance and all over bin collections. It’s hard to imagine a worse panel of genuinely appalling individuals who should not even be left in charge of emptying peoples bins. 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/council-says-talk-to-us-if-you-have-trouble-with-the-bins-583445

And all this from an account created 3 hours ago?  Yet another ban coming soon I suspect.

[Tailless]

38 minutes ago, Inky said:

No people are being asked to accept multiple unelected assholes to make decisions for them. And even when they disagree with those assholes it doesn’t make any difference. There is a much wider agenda here than bins. If people don’t get that then they must be terminally stupid. 

They were elected under the rules.  It's clear who the asshole is.

[Asthehills]

4 minutes ago, Tailless said:

And all this from an account created 3 hours ago?  Yet another ban coming soon I suspect.

All this, from an account 18 months old that has made more than half of their post in four days.

Like a burner phone that has been in someone’s back pocket

[Tailless]

3 minutes ago, Asthehills said:

All this, from an account 18 months old that has made more than half of their post in four days.

Like a burner phone that has been in someone’s back pocket

Aww

[The Voice of Reason]

31 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

It doesn't matter if they received no votes - that's just how representational democracy works. We're not normally used to the fact a person can stand and there won't be at least somebody against them. However the rules are simple: by default, an unelected person gets the seat.

That is one of the most reasonable  posts on here, frankly from the most surprising source in terms of being sensible.

So those that whine about councillors being  unelected should STFU.

While I’m on, nobody seems to have drawn attention to the parallels between David Ashford’s letter shredding and the deletion of adverse posts by Albert.

Only joking🙂

[BriT]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

So those that whine about councillors being  unelected should STFU.

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

[The Voice of Reason]

Just now, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

But nobody had anyone to vote for as an alternative. At all.

[WTF]

1 minute ago, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

by standing they voted for themselves.

[Albert Tatlock]

1 minute ago, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

You did! By sitting on your great big fat arse.

[woolley]

2 minutes ago, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

You could have stood if it means so much to you.

[Roger Mexico]

31 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

You're correct. I am not Humpty Dumpty; I think that needed to be clarified, so thanks.

I'm definitely not all-knowing. Can I ask you what you think the words in the DBC constitution were angling at when the words "due consultation" were inserted?

Edit: I'd also be interested in the criteria you consider apply when deciding to consult or not, when you state, "doesn't mean a full public consultation in every case?"

Edit: And if they decided to consult, why was it only a "limited" consultation?

Why don't you ask DBC all those interesting questions yourself?  If you get a response it would be nice if you published it here.  I was merely pointing out that those words do not mean what you think (or hope) they mean.

[Roger Mexico]

47 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

It doesn't matter if they received no votes - that's just how representational democracy works. We're not normally used to the fact a person can stand and there won't be at least somebody against them. However the rules are simple: by default, an unelected person gets the seat.

This theme is one of several that are creating unnecessary friction

On the contrary we're extremely used to people being returned unopposed at local elections in the Isle of Man.  Click on the various sets of local election results on iomelections.com (they have the results going back to 2004) and you'll see that uncontested elections - even not enough candidates to fill the seats - are very common.

Look at the 2016 election results for Douglas and you'll see that 4 of the 6 wards were uncontested (one had only two candidates for three places).  It may not be a good thing, but it's certainly common and certainly not new.  Indeed Onchan Parish never had an election in the 99 years of its existence.