Alf's House

[Passing Time]

Just now, germann said:

No wonder the state of our politics is so bad. Nobody with a modicum of talent is currently in office

There you go, fixed for accuracy

[Roger Mexico]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:30 AM, MF Moderator said:

Seems a raw nerve has been hit. Please bear this in mind when posting.

 

I understand that you may be, or may know, a moderator on the Manx Forums site. 

I was perturbed to see a thread analysis of my house emerging. I do have a public address of course and my house is on the market, but I do regard this thread as an unwarranted intrusion, particularly as my wife and two step children are living in the property. I am of course “public property” but they are most certainly not. Please could I ask that their privacy is respected.

I am afraid to say also that unfortunately personal security threats do exist and express harm has previously been made against me and the family. It really does seem completely unnecessary to expose any more than necessary personal living arrangements.

Also, I might add that whilst any publicity may be regarded as good publicity, any statements made that could be interpreted as damaging the value of the property would be of significant concern.

If you do have any influence, could I politely ask whether this matter could be reviewed.

Yours sincerely 

Alfred Cannan

It's a very strange communication, though that doesn't stop it being genuine.  Not least in that it looks as if it was sent personally to a moderator ("I understand that you may be, or may know, a moderator") rather than through a more formal contact mechanism.  It also appears that no one in IOMG appears to have heard of the Streisand Effect, which was also about where someone lived.  And when sending out a complaint about people spreading personal information, it might not be wise to include more of it.

I actually think that most members of the public are pretty good about separating the purely personal from the public in the lives of politicians and other public figures and while people may still be as nosey about the details[1], they're much less censorious than they would have been 100 or even 50 years ago and sympathetic to the changes that take place in people's lives.

But there's a wider question here about the split between public and private.  Those in positions of political power always have the potential to be privately influenced in some way to use that power to benefit others illicitly.  And that potential can be realised by gifts or money or favours given to a politician or to those close to them.  So the interests of the latter can't be ignored entirely and that is fair enough.  After all families will be benefiting indirectly anyway from the fact a politician is paid and so on.  Complete privacy can't be demanded, only that external examination is relevant.

So generally the affairs (and indeed affaires) of family members and so on should pass without comment.  But if a politician or a spouse or child happens to receive a benefit from those who themselves benefit from government business that that does need looking at.  And the decision to examine it ultimately lies with the public even friendly media can't even dictate what is looked at or not (which may be source of the whinging about 'social media').

Certainly politicians can't order something should be ignored because it's 'private'.  Cannan shouldn't be allowed to not declare gifts because he's decided he couldn't be influenced by them.  Any more than Starmer should think it's OK to accept the endless stream of goodies he and his family have been getting - though at least he does declare them.

In this case a politician selling their house shouldn't require much comment - I wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't raised these wider issues.  (Obviously if it suddenly got sold to Dandara for ten times the asking price, it would be a different matter).  But if he's really worried that anonymous comments about his plumbing will lower the value, he really needs to speak to his plumber or his estate agent, not Manx Forums.

 

[1]  Mainly because we're Manx and we love a bit of skeet, but also because in a small community it has practical consequences that affect the way we operate socially.  So for example, if a partnership has broken down or a new one formed, knowing that means you don't say something insensitive to those involved or related to one of them.

[cissolt]

Perhaps he did the plumbing himself and was super proud of it?

Certainly explains how he's enabled the island to go down the drain since taking office....

[NoTail]

Maybe if you have a growing family a larger house is desirable. 

[Amadeus]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:01 PM, Gladys said:

They are green and classified as a moderator.  I suspect rather than each mod moderating under their own account, they have a single account they can all post under, not least to avoid a personal  vendetta against any mod who does their job. 

this

As a side point, councillor addresses are also public. Not too long ago, town hall, on their own doing, said they would or wanted to change that and hide our details. We all objected. I guess different people have different definitons of transparency. Now I hope that the senior staff members who reported my previous posts on here (Hi guys!) don't do the same again. Poor standards chair will be busy otherwise.

[The Voice of Reason]

7 hours ago, Passing Time said:

There you go, fixed for accuracy

This meddling with, and altering other peoples posts because you don’t agree with them and using terms such as “ fixed for accuracy “ doesn’t sit well with me.

If you don’t agree with another’s post, just set out your reasons for doing so. It’s a forum.

You can correct factual errors, but you can’t fix an opinion for accuracy merely because you have a different opinion.

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Amadeus said:

As a side point, councillor addresses are also public. Not too long ago, town hall, on their own doing, said they would or wanted to change that and hide our details. We all objected. I guess different people have different definitons of transparency. 

Interestingly 6 of the 12 are now showing their address as  "c/o City Hall, Ridgeway Street", though the home and /or mobile numbers are all available.  You can see why this might be convenient in some cases (someone about to move for instance) or even wise given the demented abuse some councillors have received on here and elsewhere, but I wonder if staff have been deciding to switch them anyway - or not switch them back when things settled.

Edited September 20 by Roger Mexico

[Fred the shred]

Absolutely blooming cheek.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This meddling with, and altering other peoples posts because you don’t agree with them and using terms such as “ fixed for accuracy “ doesn’t sit well with me.

If you don’t agree with another’s post, just set out your reasons for doing so. It’s a forum.

You can correct factual errors, but you can’t fix an opinion for accuracy merely because you have a different opinion.

I wouldn't get too upset, as it's usually only done as a sort of one-line joke.  And usually not in outright disagreement (when setting out reasons is indeed the correct way to do things) but as a sort of intensifier of the original statement.  That said people should be clearer what they are changing - perhaps using strikethrough for deleted words (rather than removing them) and bold for added.

Obviously not giving any indication you have changed the wording (apart from not quoting parts you're not dealing with) is a complete no-no.

[Lost Login]

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This meddling with, and altering other peoples posts because you don’t agree with them and using terms such as “ fixed for accuracy “ does sit well with me.

There you go, fixed for accuracy.

[Amadeus]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Interestingly 6 of the 12 are now showing their address as  "c/o City Hall, Ridgeway Street", though the home and /or mobile numbers are all available.  You can see why this might be convenient in some cases (someone about to move for instance) or even wise given the demented abuse some councillors have received on here and elsewhere, but I wonder if staff have been deciding to switch them anyway - or not switch them back when things settled.

Oh I didn’t notice that (not a page I look at very often). I’ll try and find out. During the height of the bin debate people threatened to dump garbage on my drive and I always told them my address is public, feel free to stop by. Preferably to talk and not to dump refuse, but nobody ever did. 

I find it weird if you volunteer for public office and then try to hide from the public but maybe my attitude is different here. Safety or security doesn’t really come into it for me on the Isle of Man, but I understand if some members feel like it’s a reason. I mean what’s gonna happen here? Someone will drop another bin off on my driveway? Go for it. If this was Manila, maybe I would think different, but not on fraggle rock. 

[The Voice of Reason]

10 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I wouldn't get too upset, as it's usually only done as a sort of one-line joke.  And usually not in outright disagreement (when setting out reasons is indeed the correct way to do things) but as a sort of intensifier of the original statement.  That said people should be clearer what they are changing - perhaps using strikethrough for deleted words (rather than removing them) and bold for added.

Obviously not giving any indication you have changed the wording (apart from not quoting parts you're not dealing with) is a complete no-no.

A couple of reasonable points there Roger, but I still find the practice rude.

If you and I were having a chat and I opined that schoolchildren shouldn’t have their phones with them in the classroom, would you say “ no, what you mean is that they should have them in the classroom”

And then let out a loud guffaw, in lieu of a laughing emoji.

I would be very irritated.

Anyway it’s not big and it’s not clever

 

[Kopek]

Editing someone else's post, with or without accreditation, is not acceptable.

[Amadeus]

5 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Editing someone else's post, with or without accreditation, is not acceptable.

But you’re not editing someone’s post when you edit a quote. “Fixed that for you” is a well established thing on the internets you know. 

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

But you’re not editing someone’s post when you edit a quote. “Fixed that for you” is a well established thing on the internets you know. 

It isn’t changing the original post, do I don't see what is upsetting.