Jarndyce Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 There should be a third option: “ don’t give a monkey’s”… 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lamb Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 It would be wicked to complete the survey in favour of the Bishop and prayers just to spite Hooper, wouldn't it? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Harry Lamb said: It would be wicked to complete the survey in favour of the Bishop and prayers just to spite Hooper, wouldn't it? Couldn't happen to a nicer person though, could it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 6 minutes ago, Harry Lamb said: It would be wicked to complete the survey in favour of the Bishop and prayers just to spite Hooper, wouldn't it? Yes. Because this isn't about Hooper, it's about whether an off-Island appointee should have the power to legislate over us. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, Declan said: Yes. Because this isn't about Hooper, it's about whether an off-Island appointee should have the power to legislate over us. It is about Hooper. If he was really concerned about democracy then he'd be wanting the whole of LegCo removed and replaced by popular vote. That's real democracy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casta Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I would complete the survey if it was on an IoMGov website, not Hooper's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, cissolt said: https://lhooperiom.com/2024/01/03/bishopsvoteconsultation/ Interesting that lawrie is adding prayers to his list of religious objections. Seems to be a bugbear for certain politicians. I thought they decided some time ago that prayers would be recited before the sitting. I am surprised they are still part of the proceedings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I have completed the questionnaire. I have three concerns - 1. Asking for the name of the person completing, which isn’t relevant 2. I have concerns should the person completing the questionnaire having given their name, as to Hoopermans use of peoples data. Is he abiding to GDPR? 3. There is a tick box asking if you to be on Hoopermans mailing list. This should be a consultation organised by IOMG/HoK, should be out of Hoopermans hands. Maybe it could be argued that the consultation is biased towards one party? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, 2112 said: I have completed the questionnaire. I have three concerns - 1. Asking for the name of the person completing, which isn’t relevant 2. I have concerns should the person completing the questionnaire having given their name, as to Hoopermans use of peoples data. Is he abiding to GDPR? 3. There is a tick box asking if you to be on Hoopermans mailing list. This should be a consultation organised by IOMG/HoK, should be out of Hoopermans hands. Maybe it could be argued that the consultation is biased towards one party? It's unusual to ask an MHK to do their own survey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: I thought they decided some time ago that prayers would be recited before the sitting. I am surprised they are still part of the proceedings. It’s Hooperman making a complete and utter tit of himself and mockery. It’s not solving any social problems or finding solutions. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: It's unusual to ask an MHK to do their own survey. Perhaps Hooperman could have employed a reputable polling company - Gallup/Ipso Mori etc? He probably wouldn’t want to spend his own money, would probably want to squander taxpayers funds. It would be interesting to have @Roger Mexico comment as to whether MHKs have done their own survey particularly in relation to a consultation prior to a private members bill. It would be interesting to have @John Wright comment as to whether the consultation being pushed through Hoopermans own personal website conforms - I think it is biased. Edited January 4 by 2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, 2112 said: It’s Hooperman making a complete and utter tit of himself and mockery. It’s not solving any social problems or finding solutions. It's a move towards a secular society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: It's a move towards a secular society. I respect your view, but seeking views on prayers, when the matter has been dealt with, done and dusted, is quite frankly bizarre, and stupid to say the least. What is he trying to achieve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 29 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: It is about Hooper. If he was really concerned about democracy then he'd be wanting the whole of LegCo removed and replaced by popular vote. That's real democracy. He was on MR this morning. He says that Tynwald only ever evolves in small, incremental steps and the removal of the Bish's vote is one of them. He was talking about timespans of 150 years at one point. He favours a publicly elected Legco but says it would be a step too much at present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 By Hooperman asking a question regarding prayers in the HoK/Tynwald, is there now a legal issue involved, so arse covering is order of the day? I genuinely thought that the issue of prayers was regurgitated, debated and voted upon ages ago? Why bring it up again? It telling me that something or some procedure hasn’t been adopted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.