Innocent until proven guilty??

[HeliX]

38 minutes ago, forestboy said:

Idiot yet again 

Following Stu around calling all of his detractors idiots is a really shit hobby

[Harry Lamb]

12 hours ago, HeliX said:

Following Stu around calling all of his detractors idiots is a really shit hobby

Exhausting, too, one imagines.

[John Wright]

17 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

So I have 1/33 of a say in the matter. In your tiresome yet predictable haste to correct me you have acknowledged that at least 32 others would be involved in changing the law.

Stu. I wasn’t hasty. Didn’t jump in. It’s not me who’s tiresome. It’s you.

Let’s recap.

You are an elected legislator?

You publicly state that defendants should not be named before conviction?

You then say that’s for others?

Someone points out it’s a job for Tynwald, of which you are an elected member?

You attack that suggestion as you’re only one member?

Have you asked or lobbied other members?

Have you asked the Clerk of Tynwald’s office and legislative draftsmen to help you draft a private members bill?

Do you realise you only need 12 other members to support you to get it through the keys?

You’re 7.7% of the way there already.

If you believe in it,  do something. You’re in a position where you could!

[Passing Time]

42 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Stu. I wasn’t hasty. Didn’t jump in. It’s not me who’s tiresome. It’s you.

Let’s recap.

You are an elected legislator?

You publicly state that defendants should not be named before conviction?

You then say that’s for others?

Someone points out it’s a job for Tynwald, of which you are an elected member?

You attack that suggestion as you’re only one member?

Have you asked or lobbied other member?

Have you asked the Clerk of Tynwald’s office and legislative draftsmen to help you draft a private members bill?

Do you realise you only need 12 other members to support you to get it through the keys?

You’re 7.7% of the way there already.

If you believe in it do something. You’re in a position where you could!

There seems to be the problem, nobody want to put their heads above the parapet

[offshoremanxman]

On 2/18/2023 at 1:18 AM, Capt_Mainwaring said:

Possibly because they'd realised they'd nearly destroyed someone's career/life with their previous desperate attempts at getting a headline? It's a shame not everyone gets the same treatment. 

More likely because her mother declared that she earns £2M a year in court and she made sure the media did what it should do in ALL these cases but seldom actually does which is openly publish the innocent verdict. 

[WTF]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

Stu. I wasn’t hasty. Didn’t jump in. It’s not me who’s tiresome. It’s you.

Let’s recap.

You are an elected legislator?

You publicly state that defendants should not be named before conviction?

You then say that’s for others?

Someone points out it’s a job for Tynwald, of which you are an elected member?

You attack that suggestion as you’re only one member?

Have you asked or lobbied other members?

Have you asked the Clerk of Tynwald’s office and legislative draftsmen to help you draft a private members bill?

Do you realise you only need 12 other members to support you to get it through the keys?

You’re 7.7% of the way there already.

If you believe in it,  do something. You’re in a position where you could!

sadly this all falls down at the last line , specifically the 'do something'

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

More likely because her mother declared that she earns £2M a year in court and she made sure the media did what it should do in ALL these cases but seldom actually does which is openly publish the innocent verdict. 

Cases like this aren't usually the problem because the media will normally publish reporting of jury trials, whatever the result.  The real information gap is about cases where people are charged, but the charges are then dropped, sometimes after a considerable time of people being on bail and perhaps appearing in court several times.

[Derek Flint]

That said John, I bet we are still waiting for those PPP amendments! What’s that now, eight years?

unbelievable

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

That said John, I bet we are still waiting for those PPP amendments! What’s that now, eight years?

unbelievable

PPP?

[HiVibes]

 

8 hours ago, John Wright said:

You’re 7.7% of the way there already.

Thats pretty unfair, how is he going to work that out on his fingers.

[woolley]

8 hours ago, John Wright said:

Stu. I wasn’t hasty. Didn’t jump in. It’s not me who’s tiresome. It’s you.

Let’s recap.

You are an elected legislator?

You publicly state that defendants should not be named before conviction?

You then say that’s for others?

Someone points out it’s a job for Tynwald, of which you are an elected member?

You attack that suggestion as you’re only one member?

Have you asked or lobbied other members?

Have you asked the Clerk of Tynwald’s office and legislative draftsmen to help you draft a private members bill?

Do you realise you only need 12 other members to support you to get it through the keys?

You’re 7.7% of the way there already.

If you believe in it,  do something. You’re in a position where you could!

This is actually a very good point which ALL members of Tynwald should take note of. No point in wishing you'd done something after you've been kicked out.

[John Wright]

21 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

 

Thats pretty unfair, how is he going to work that out on his fingers.

I assume he’s got toes to count on as well, although I’ve never got into an up close, or intimate, requiring sock removal, situation with Stu.

[HiVibes]

15 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I assume he’s got toes to count on as well, although I’ve never got into an up close, or intimate, requiring sock removal, situation with Stu.

I doubt he can see his toes.

[WTF]

4 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

I doubt he can see his toes.

or anything else.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

PPP?

Police Powers & Procedures.

Tynwald was to rush through updates to the codes. They were defective. The Law Society was aware and did nothing, so i e-mailed all Tynwald members seeking that they adjourn.

I was approached by AG, Minister of Home Affairs, and others, and persuaded to withdraw my objections against an undertaking to bring forward amendments to cover the objections I had raised, within 3 months. Still waiting.