Innocent until proven guilty??

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

PPP?

Piss Poor Policing

[Stu Peters]

There are a number of things I’d change if I was omnipotent. But I’m not.

The work involved in changing this law would be completely wasted as even if I somehow got Tynwald members to accept it, I doubt it would get royal assent since much of our legislation mirrors UK/EU.

So I’ll choose my battles and hope for small quiet victories rather than play noisily to the gallery and achieve nothing.

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

There are a number of things I’d change if I was omnipotent. But I’m not.

The work involved in changing this law would be completely wasted as even if I somehow got Tynwald members to accept it, I doubt it would get royal assent since much of our legislation mirrors UK/EU.

So I’ll choose my battles and hope for small quiet victories rather than play noisily to the gallery and achieve nothing.

Why would Westminster withhold consent?

Our law about identifying victims and defendants has been at odds with that of England over identifying victims and alleged perpetrators of sexual assaults several times over the last 30 years.

Much of the EU limit identifying and reporting.

 

[A fool and his money.....]

10 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

 

The work involved in changing this law would be completely wasted as even if I somehow got Tynwald members to accept it, I doubt it would get royal assent since much of our legislation mirrors UK/EU.

That's a pretty shocking admission from a serving MHK.

If modesty allows, would you care to list your small, quiet victories to date?

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Why would Westminster withhold consent?

Our law about identifying victims and defendants has been at odds with that of England over identifying victims and alleged perpetrators of sexual assaults several times over the last 30 years.

Much of the EU limit identifying and reporting.

 

Out of interest, John, what would be the usual reason for Royal Assent being denied?  I am assuming it is not because the proposed  legislation is not the same as the UK legislation, but because it offends some deeper fundamental principle?  Like we reintroduce the death penalty, for  example?

[A fool and his money.....]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Out of interest, John, what would be the usual reason for Royal Assent being denied?  I am assuming it is not because the proposed  legislation is not the same as the UK legislation, but because it offends some deeper fundamental principle?  Like we reintroduce the death penalty, for  example?

I would hope it's extremely unusual!

[Gladys]

Just now, A fool and his money..... said:

I would hope it's extremely unusual!

So would I, or the whole basis on which we proclaim to be self-governing falls away  doesn't it? 

[John Wright]

24 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Out of interest, John, what would be the usual reason for Royal Assent being denied?  I am assuming it is not because the proposed  legislation is not the same as the UK legislation, but because it offends some deeper fundamental principle?  Like we reintroduce the death penalty, for  example?

 

22 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

I would hope it's extremely unusual!

 

20 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So would I, or the whole basis on which we proclaim to be self-governing falls away  doesn't it? 

It’s incredibly rare. The updating of the law relating to Theft and Criminal damage was held up between 1976 to 1981 as Tynwald tried to keep the birch for sentencing.

Weve lots of areas where our laws are based on non UK provisions, or purely Manx solutions that the UK doesn’t/didn’t  want. Think civil partnerships for opposite gendered couples as a recent(ish) example.

The legislation is looked at in London when it’s in draft. The Governor and AG are told if it’s unacceptable.

[The Voice of Reason]

47 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

There are a number of things I’d change if I was omnipotent. But I’m not.

The work involved in changing this law would be completely wasted as even if I somehow got Tynwald members to accept it, I doubt it would get royal assent since much of our legislation mirrors UK/EU.

So I’ll choose my battles and hope for small quiet victories rather than play noisily to the gallery and achieve nothing.

Sorry Stu

I am normally one of your supporters. But you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say “ well I can’t achieve anything major so I will just stick to the low level stuff”

If not you who would get laws changed? You don’t have to be omnipotent just try and convince your fellow MHKs of the worthiness of your cause.

OK if they don’t get it and don’t support it fair enough,  but at least you have tried not just said “ it’s not going to happen so I won’t bother”

And the electorate would know more what you stood for, rather than thinking you of you as a defeatist. Might help you next election time should you stand again.

You had the balls to stand  as an MHK. Don’t lose them now you got in.

 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

55 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

There are a number of things I’d change if I was omnipotent. But I’m not.

The work involved in changing this law would be completely wasted as even if I somehow got Tynwald members to accept it, I doubt it would get royal assent since much of our legislation mirrors UK/EU.

So I’ll choose my battles and hope for small quiet victories rather than play noisily to the gallery and achieve nothing.

Why did you put your name forward as a Member of Tynwald if you don't believe you can change anything; and based on this won't even try? 

[Gladys]

Isn't there a Justice Bill or something similar going through the motions at the moment to overhaul and modernise the IOM justice system?  Wouldn't be a huge exercise to add a couple of clauses would it? 

[A fool and his money.....]

8 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Why did you put your name forward as a Member of Tynwald if you don't believe you can change anything; and based on this won't even try? 

I can think of about 70,000 reasons. To not act on your political beliefs incase they don't get royal assent is not pragmatism, it's sheer laziness and apathy.

I doubt we'll ever hear (much less benefit from) the small, quiet victories Stu claims to favour, mainly because they don't exist, far better to keep your head down, put your own and the beliefs of your constituents to one side and ride the gravy train - the 30 grand parachute payment after the next election will kick his pension off nicely.

Exactly the sort of politician we can do without.

[Kopek]

An MHK does not have to go thru the fairly rigorous procedure of a \private \members Bill, they can ask the relevant dept to consider changes required???

Probably where Moorehouse scores above those who don't even ask the relevant question? Question, then weeks later a dept response  concurring!!!!

[HiVibes]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

There are a number of things I’d change if I was omnipotent. But I’m not.

The work involved in changing this law would be completely wasted as even if I somehow got Tynwald members to accept it, I doubt it would get royal assent since much of our legislation mirrors UK/EU.

So I’ll choose my battles and hope for small quiet victories rather than play noisily to the gallery and achieve nothing.

Better to try and fail than never try at all, it's almost as if you never had any intention of representing people and were just up for the money after your failed busineses and the part time radio career washed up.

[HiVibes]

47 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Why did you put your name forward as a Member of Tynwald if you don't believe you can change anything; and based on this won't even try? 

MONEY that he could never earn.