Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Gladys

  1. She was seconded and is no longer an IOM public servant.
  2. To add insult to injury, political discussion has now been thwarted under the guise of sub judice. This is really turning into a major crisis in my view and all because there was a weak minister and some professional jealousy. Fucking travesty.
  3. Just because we have parties (and I am not sure they really are political parties) doesn't mean we have a party political system. There is no constitional provision for one, where the party with the most seats gets to establish the government and the opposition forms a shadow cabinet.
  4. You should always keep your tits warm during winter so they are in their prime during the warmer months. I know I look after mine.
  5. If we had party politics with the opposition screaming foul from across the chamber, things may have been better. Who have we got to hold the politicians to account? Absolutely no-one. And who is there to give unbiased guidance to them in this dire situation? Absolutely no-one. Everyone who you would expect to fulfill that role is tainted by this. The only man is the Lt Gov (ie the UK) and do we really want that intervention?
  6. No the netting was with reference to the small cafe. Yes, they are a nuisance, but surely there are ways of dealing with them? Why are you so badly affected? Could you not, say, put a cage over your velux, netting over your salad plants (other animals will eat stuff), put a decoy (a decoy heron works to keep real herons away from koi ponds, for example). Is it gulls digging up your bulbs? Never heard of that before. I do sympathise, but a cull will just mean that the remaining birds will thrive as they will have a greater share of the available resource. TBH my own unscientific observation is that we actually have a declining population of them, probably because we are a bit tidier. I am of the live and let live persuasion, and in the greater scheme of things nature has had to adapt more to survive the effects of man than the reverse. That won't be a popular view, but there you go.
  7. I think so, she refused to submit to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Not sure how that panned out as it would seem she gave evidence.
  8. Not sure, but I think you are right. From memory, sub judice was originally intended to prevent juries being influenced and didn't really apply to the judiciary who were expected not to be so influenced. As you say, the decision is published, it isn’t sub judice and what judicial process is likely to be prejudiced? But, I suppose if that is what the AG says, then that is that and it keeps everyone quiet until a "party line" is agreed. No doubt someone legal on here will correct us.
  9. You stand a better chance of linking this to something on FB, but keep the discussion on here. They all love a bit of FB.
  10. Yes, I understand that and it is a natural process that we all do. But to devote a section to that analysis is what I am getting at.
  11. Could someone a better understanding of Tribunals answer this question please? Why was the credibility of witnesses given its own special analysis? I have looked at a couple of decisions, and have not seen credibility as a distinct topic. There may be an aside, "Mr A was found to give consistent and clear evidence and was considered a credible witness" but not an analysis as in this decision. Or perhaps I have missed it?
  12. Why did they have to take place in the UK? They could have done it virtually from an office in the DHSC with Magson dialling in. That is what most businesses did. She was the one, presumably, who decided not to relocate here for the duration of her appointment.
  13. She does have a lovely smile though.
  14. That should not compromise freedom and independence.
  15. Ah, OK. I can't remember anyone who came across as a shill, tbh. Blind, frightened and self-interested, perhaps.
  16. TBH I don't think the supporters were shills, just very frightened people who were grateful they didn't die. They don't care about all the other things as they survived and that is all that matters.
  17. I remember DA defending the decision early in 2020, (iirc) almost as though those who raised concerns were luddites and ignorant of the benefit of the digital age. That went well ETA but he doesn’t get involved in personnel matters. Further ETA, he clearly said on MR that the Minister signs something to say that personnel issues are for the Dept not the Minister. The Minister's role being to appoint the CEO!
  18. What DA fails to understand is that the concerns are not relating to the personnel matter as such, that has been dealt with by the Tribunal. It is more about the fitness for purpose of the government and management structures and people in place. The fact he cannot grasp that reiterates the calibre of the man.
  19. He mentioned a cull. My solution is for people not to leave rubbish about which gives the gulls a great source of food. As for your friend's cafe, I don't know why they had a problem or what the problem was, but there must be a natural way of deterring them (apart from not leaving crap about). Decoy, netting?
  20. Only problem is, it is factually incorrect. He isn't paying anything, we are.
  21. Most people do, but when they (or any wildlife) impacts on our life, the knee jerk seems to be a cull. I wasn't having a dig at you so much as a general dig at the attitude that when it us inconvenient kill it. I agree Mooragh Park is a facility to be proud of. But, as others observed, they wouldn't have nested there if there had been activity (maintenance) going on around.
  22. Well yes, but the ones that are left will have a bonanza and, rubbing their wings together, will produce more offspring. I really don't get the down people have with gulls. They are just wild creatures trying to get by. The fact we object to them is our problem, not theirs.
  23. They are a protected species, I think. If it was a pair of pretty blue tits, you would think differently, possibly?
  • Create New...