More uselessness from DBC

[Idleweiss]

The full ruling looks like a belter 

https://www.tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/about/TCA/Documents/TCA-2023-0014.pdf

[Sheldon]

1 hour ago, Idleweiss said:

The full ruling looks like a belter 

https://www.tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/about/TCA/Documents/TCA-2023-0014.pdf

What a complete and utter waste of everybody's time - including the time I just spent reading about the entire shit show. Nobody comes out of it with a shred of dignity intact, although (whisper it) my sympathies on balance lie with the Council.

[Idleweiss]

19 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

What a complete and utter waste of everybody's time - including the time I just spent reading about the entire shit show. Nobody comes out of it with a shred of dignity intact, although (whisper it) my sympathies on balance lie with the Council.

Yes it made me laugh when I saw it. What a waste of time and money as you say. Although I suppose the Council could just have followed their own rules and not made up stories about the guy posting bad things online which he says he didn’t do simply in order to justify blocking him. I wonder how much this cost? Can you do an FOI on that sort of thing? 

[english zloty]

3 hours ago, Sheldon said:

What a complete and utter waste of everybody's time - including the time I just spent reading about the entire shit show. Nobody comes out of it with a shred of dignity intact, although (whisper it) my sympathies on balance lie with the Council.

sorry disagree

the Council should learn a lot from this. three counts of maladministration, which can be reflected into other polices.

it's not merely about following policies, it's about those policies being fit for purpose when needed.

[FANDL]

7 minutes ago, english zloty said:

sorry disagree

the Council should learn a lot from this. three counts of maladministration, which can be reflected into other polices.

it's not merely about following policies, it's about those policies being fit for purpose when needed.

Speaking to Wheeler something even funnier is expected to happen next week or the week after via IOM Newspapers. He has left a cryptic Tweet reproduced below. If it is as believed it will prove to be even more embarrassing than this has been so far.

[english zloty]

4 minutes ago, FANDL said:

Speaking to Wheeler something even funnier is expected to happen next week or the week after via IOM Newspapers. He has left a cryptic Tweet reproduced below. If it is as believed it will prove to be even more embarrassing than this has been so far.

perhaps she with the silver shoes will be taking her teddy home one last time

[Sheldon]

34 minutes ago, english zloty said:

sorry disagree

the Council should learn a lot from this. three counts of maladministration, which can be reflected into other polices.

it's not merely about following policies, it's about those policies being fit for purpose when needed.

No disagreement on that point; I did say that nobody comes out of this well, but everything is relative.

I especially liked the input (or rather the lack of input) from the union who as a matter of habitual practice can't be bothered to review or sign off said policies despite being explicit signatories. 

[FANDL]

31 minutes ago, english zloty said:

perhaps she with the silver shoes will be taking her teddy home one last time

Most people know that these local authorities, and government as a wider entity, often operate as a law unto themselves and don’t think they are accountable to the people who actually fund their ambitions. But if what’s been said is true then it will be clear that the lengths that some people are prepared to go to in order to discredit and disenfranchise the public are often off the scale. 

[Amadeus]

6 hours ago, FANDL said:

Speaking to Wheeler something even funnier is expected to happen next week or the week after via IOM Newspapers. He has left a cryptic Tweet reproduced below. If it is as believed it will prove to be even more embarrassing than this has been so far.

I received many of the emails the whole saga evolves around. Anything I could say about it would just inflame things more so I’ll leave it for my autobiography after the election next year. 

[Idleweiss]

12 hours ago, english zloty said:

the Council should learn a lot from this. three counts of maladministration, which can be reflected into other polices.

As my taxes paid for it I read the whole sixty odd pages last night and you’re right. I used Paul Beckett for something when he was in private practice so I know he’s a good and thorough lawyer and the successive acts of maladministration are clearly laid out. It’s a very thorough and clear document. As the policy was not signed do we even believe it existed up until they decided to wrongly invoke it just to shut this bloke up? It’s clear that despite being a pain in the ass the man never met the criteria in their own policy to be blocked and neither did he say the things that they said that he said on social media to try to justify the ban.

Am I correct in assuming that the redacted [name of social media platform] referred to is this forum as it says that it is administered by a town councillor [name provided]. So it looks like far from them proving he said anything bad about them publicly he actually produced clips from posts on here that slagged him and others off that he’s claiming that a moderator who is also a councillor allowed to be posted about him. It’s a shame it all had to be redacted as I’d love to see what was said.

[Manxieover65]

I totally know this Wheeler thing is most definitely true . I raised my head above the parapet about the same issue and was hounded by letters , house inspections , means tested almost once a month . I upset one person in the council and was hounded . They are all corrupt

[Kipper99]

It does beg the question as to just how far a member of the public should be allowed to go before action is taken to limit contact.

Reading the report from the Ombudsman it seems it wasn’t just 45 e-mails but that each e-mail had multiple addressees, each had to be read, by multiple persons, and responded to. It’s wasteful of ratepayer funded resources. It appears to have been explained that the waste was commercial, wasn’t collectible  by the corporation, and the bin didn’t belong to the corporation, but that didn’t stop someone taking the bin down and dumping it in the town hall.

[Jarndyce]

35 minutes ago, Kipper99 said:

It appears to have been explained that the waste was commercial, wasn’t collectible  by the corporation, and the bin didn’t belong to the corporation

You appear to be using facts - that will never do!

[Idleweiss]

38 minutes ago, Kipper99 said:

It does beg the question as to just how far a member of the public should be allowed to go before action is taken to limit contact.

Surely the adjudication makes it 100% clear that the level to which people are allowed to go should be defined in the councils policies. It was defined and the prescribed limit the policy laid out clearly hadn’t been met as assessed by the adjudicator. An experienced lawyer. 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Idleweiss said:

Am I correct in assuming that the redacted [name of social media platform] referred to is this forum as it says that it is administered by a town councillor [name provided]. So it looks like far from them proving he said anything bad about them publicly he actually produced clips from posts on here that slagged him and others off that he’s claiming that a moderator who is also a councillor allowed to be posted about him. It’s a shame it all had to be redacted as I’d love to see what was said.

Well you could find out by typing "Wheeler" into the search box on this very page and it would given you all the posts where he was mentioned on this very topic and you could read those and those surrounding them.

(The redaction in all these reports is always a bit ridiculous on somewhere as small as the Isle of Man, but particularly so where the complainant hasn't been shy about seeking publicity).