Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Skeddan

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

3 Followers

About Skeddan

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. Hi Chinahand - no, I've not left, nor morphed into anyone else, and yes it is interesting. "temporary sovereignty" is a nice phrase. The political question doctorine as I understand it is essentially the 'Act of State' doctorine, which further suggests that this is under prerogative powers. Well at least the judge thought it through that far rather than just ridiculing out of hand as I think you did - and which isn't really the way to get to the bottom of questions about legal relationships. But back to IoM and legal relationship with the UK: there is an unanswered question, I've put forward reasons why the relationship is one of defacto (or 'temporary') sovereignty (as per occupying power), which seems the only rational coherent way to account for all the quirks and peculiarities (saying it's 'ambiguous' or 'mysterious' isn't an explanation of the legal relationship but evading explanation). The best you've come up with is using a cartoon to ridicule the notion the UK only has defacto sovereignty. I had hoped to find some mature discussion on the topic, and perhaps persuasive cogent counter-arguments. Sadly there's been little more than trite dismissal and ungrounded dogmatic insistence that it ain't so. When someone has their head buried in the ground, you generally find they are talking out of their backside, and the most you get from that is hot air and shit. (Oh yes, there was the 'dancing on pinheads' comment too - making out that the question of constitutional relationship is of no importance whatsover - as if it will be just exactly as you choose to think it is - no matter what. A bit delusional IMO, but then so is your cartoon world approach to such questions)
  2. USB adaptor works great, but I'm not so impressed by the WN511B PC Card. If you ever think about getting one of these cards, see if you can try before you buy.
  3. pongo - difference between constitutional arrangements and 'constitutional relationship'. Let me rephrase to clarify - IoM's status in international law. It is not a sovereign state. It is a dependent territory (which sounds a bit like Baltic states under Soviet Union). IoM is a non-self-governing territory, yet does not seem to have right of self-determination. The limits of the UK's power and control over IoM is far from clear. Ultimately can UK impose whatever legislation on IoM it likes or not? To answer that requires establishing the legal source of the UK's power and control over IoM. Is it held under de facto control by UK as an Administering Power? Is it a colonial possession? What exactly happened to the sovereignty that IoM had prior to 1764? "Sometimes not exactly defining a relationship is the best way forward." The notion of 'constructive ambiguity' comes into play when different sides have different positions and views. IOMG doesn't have a view - just unrelenting cluelessness. In a relationship say between landlord and tenant, if one side is clueless about their rights and position, aren't they more likely to be taken advantage of and taken for a ride? e.g. thinking they did well in the concessions they negotiated when in reality they are making concessions they needn't. (Ah this is a positive relationship - just shows, the best way forward is to remain resolutely clueless!).
  4. homarus - 'technically' Gawne is right about this - sort of. Manx Territorial waters are currently part of the UK Exclusive Fishery Zone (per Fishing Limits Act 1976 - see earlier post). As part of British Fishery Limits, EU vessels cannot be excluded any more than they can be from UK coastal waters. However that's because the EFZ around IoM is claimed by the UK not IoM. IMO this could and should be challenged, and IoM should claim its own EFZ which would give IoM exclusive rights in these waters. My guess is that Phil Gawne is being guided and taking advice in this by Whitehall via CSO and the Humphreys in his department. I imagine he's a bit out of his depth in all of this, and hasn't really got much of a clue beyond what he's told by the mandarins - who are servants of the Crown (of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Perhaps he should start asking some questions - like just exactly what gives the UK the right to claim what should be a Manx EFZ as its own? (splutter, Minister, really!, cough cough, hrumph, long historic... complex... really do we have to go into this... )
  5. I'd worry that maximization of commercial value might mean treating some risks of a major disaster as 'acceptable'. i.e. it is not cost-effective to bear possibly enormous cost of mitigating against all possibility of catastrophic disaster. Decision trees and so on might show economic only to take precautions up to a point - then take the gamble on the rest. Maximizing commercial value is about doing the maths. This may mean cost-effective precautions only. Fight Club: ("we are committed to reducing automotive safety hazards cost-effectively, through product recalls, while maximizing commercial value.") Narrator: A study of the cost-effective clean-up and decommissioning of Sellafield by my consulting company looked at the risks of catastrophic disaster. Business woman on plane: Is there much of a risk of that? Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
  6. Of course that's assuming there is a Labour Government then.
  7. Note that in the Pre-Budget Report review of the Crown Dependencies as financial centres is one of HMG's three main international priorities. However as noted by Cronky, is is explicity stated that "The review will not consider changes to the UK’s constitutional relationship." As I've been harping on about, IoM might do well to get clarity on the exact nature of this bizarre and obscure constitutional relationship with the UK and to know exactly where it stands in this. Having a clear and solid understanding of one's legal position in a relationship is simply good sense as preparation for any negotiations. An attitude of 'oh it doesn't matter' or 'it's not important' and supposing that being uninformed and ignorant about such matters is of no disadvantage strikes me as incredibly naive. Should one assume it is an unfathomable mystery incapable of being answered, even by a trained chimpanzee with enough bananas? (to borrow from a comment by a former Clerk of Tynwald). Why the stubborn avoidance of clarification of this question? If one buries one's head in the sand over this, how can one be certain that this is for the best? Who knows, getting to the bottom of this might prove to be very much to IoM's advantage. IoMG spends enormous amounts on Commissions, Inquiries and Reports, yet there is total disregard and silence on this topic which is a matter of fundamental importance in the key relationship with the UK. One would think this might be a major priority. Instead it seems as if it is firmly established that this is something on which to keep 'eyes wide shut'. Why? Is it something cloaked in secrecy and off-limits, and forbidden to pry into? If not, what reason can there be to not try to get to the bottom of this? Under present circumstances I would think this would be even more of a priority. It's a wonder that IoMG seem to be so unrelentingly clueless about the exact nature of the constitutional relationship with the UK.
  8. Wouldn't DAFF have closed it even if it had been a dedicated public footpath? Were DAFF the landowner? Maybe the court would be all literalistic about it as you are. I'd think the meaning of it is the standard one of 'unchallenged' - in the sense of the public using it as a footpath and the landowner doesn't challenge their right to use it as such. If say an unexploded bomb were found near the path and it were closed until the bomb was disposed of, that might be an 'interruption' as you see it. However it wouldn't be challenging the public's right to use the path as a public footpath - just closing the path for safety reasons - and would have closed it irrespective of whether or not it was a dedicated public footpath. Anyhow you could be right - maybe they'd take anything into consideration to give Mr Clarkson the benefit. DAFF or even deep snow fall that might block the path - perhaps even heavy downpour of rain or high winds might be counted as interrupting the public's enjoyment of the path as of right. (it interferes with the enjoyment, even if not interfering with the right).
  9. Ross reinstated - this gives a summary of what went wrong: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle5208843.ece
  10. Does it have the latest firmware?
  11. It means 'enjoyed by the public as a right'. The landowner doesn't have to have given permission. The public must have made use of the footpath as they would as though they had the right to use it. Over time if this use is undisturbed and without interruption, this becomes a right. The landowner is then treated as having dedicated that as a right of way unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
  12. Maybe DAFF should also think about an eco fisheries protection vessel if the cost of fuelling the Barrule is a problem.
  13. This is a great little add-on for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108 If you don't want to write a user style, then there's plenty of ready-made ones out there - like this one to block 'Ads by Google' : http://userstyles.org/styles/6865 There's also plenty of different ready made styles to change the look of You Tube and most major sites.
×
×
  • Create New...