Julian Ass-blancmange

Oh yes, Quim, the ultimate Manx Forums c**t.

You’re too thick to work it all out. If we’re talking about alcohol where’s the bar Bill?

Everything experiences its zeitgeist for a while but really how long did the owners think they could get away with widespread abusing people across a small community while hiding behind silly anonymous sock puppets on MF even if their controllers told them it was ok? I think they have done well keeping up the pretense that there are a huge number of posters on here when the logins and daily users people have seen this week prove that it’s basically just them and their mates creating a huge number of sock puppets for all the havoc and abuse they wreak. I guess they’ve ran out of options really as now it’s very clear to all that it’s only about 15 people who regularly use Manx Forums, all of whom are largely connected to the Mods, and all of whom are behind this charade of putting on a sad marionette show for others to watch and they can’t even keep up that pretence anymore. The Manx Forums emperors new clothes have been worn in public for far too long now. They’re all standing there stark bollock naked wondering how to get out of this all now. What will be the next move?

If I was a betting man this is how it might unfold over the next few weeks Massive pressure is put on Boris and Gove by Cameron and the EU They get exposed as being charlatans who ran a false campaign They get forced to make a public statement that admits they didn't expect the balance to be tipped so said the first things that came into their heads as benefits would never have to be realized Everyone wants their heads on spikes and feels that they've been duped They are publicly shamed in the media The whole referendum status is put in question as people realize they made decisions based on lies Either a new referendum is called or government agrees not to ratify as whole basis for voting fundamentally flawed Some people will be pissed off however more by the day will accept whole basis of the Leave Camp was fundamentally flawed and that they were conned. UK keeps its head down for a few years as EU hits the skids anyway due to the instability the UK has caused but at least there's been no need to de-link everything.

Logically who in their right mind would vote to be land locked? For the chance for them or their kids not to have a choice to work in 28 countries around Europe? Who of sane mind would opt to have no mobility through which they could potentially improve themselves, or to have restricted options to move to, and potentially enjoy, a culture that might better suit their personal political or economic views? Who would vote to irrevocably guarantee a lack of personal flexibility and to have to remain tied to an economy or political system they don't subscribe to or agree with? And who on earth would vote to remain insular in the face of an increasing multi cultural and globalized world? Migration creates opportunity. There will be winners and losers; but open borders maintain those opportunities for people to better themselves if that is what they choose to do. Even if those people are Manx people who want to move elsewhere. The U.K has just consigned a whole generation to remain in their own country. The Manx will now have to largely remain at home too on the back of it; no matter how tough our economy gets as borders close to workers from non EU states. They (the British people) are all now hostages to the politics of their country, and to the economy of their country. It's an ideological prison that's been set in the jingoistic scripts of 1950s Pathe news broadcasts. The U.K that the people who voted for all this think exists does not exist; the UKs recent success has only happened partly because of EU money and EU mobility. What's worse is the IOM had no vote at all and now our citizens will have to live with the restricted mobility and the chaos that ensues.

Bullshit ! Next time you fall for a magic bean salesman make sure that first you see the magic bean shoot in operation, and then the golden goose that's firing out the golden eggs before you get sold on the idea. Gawne is a charlatan who is only interested in his own self agrandisation.

The timing of Phil Gawnes announcement and his radio interview does not surprise me as it is similar to the extreme opportunism demonstrated by a lot of the weasels in the EU debate. This is just about their ambitions and their quest for power. It has little to do with what is best for the people and their jobs or their lives. He sees an opportunity to leverage off this as he sees himself as a future CM in his own head, and he sees how Independence gives him an opportunity to tap into the confusion that is setting in. He problebly sees all that as he is a politician who refuses to accept his failings and short comings. We can't run anything on this Island. Our government has failed to manage the economy, it has failed to manage our infrastructure, it has failed to deal with public sector wages and pensions, and Gawne in particular has failed to listen to anyone about anything and failed to even deliver solutions that the voting public wants for things like Laxey Bridge or the Promenade. Don't start trying to sell us Independence now that you have failed in all other areas of politics but you see a niche for you to personally profit from Mr Gawne! This is what has seen for the Conservative Government in the UK (and the EU). It stopped listening to its own people, it stopped doing what the people wanted it to do, and it avoided having an honest debate with people as it thought it could manage the position to deliver its desired outcome. It was arrogant and aloof, and it thought it had it all in the bag. That's when the public fought back. Even if they didn't really believe in the Leave argument it was something to beat Cameron and the Conservatives with. At least America is in a luckier part of the cycle. It has a nutter like Trump standing centre stage to galvanize and channel hatred, and racism, and anger amongst the sort of idiots who in the UK will have voted to leave to punish the government. But he's channeling that into creating votes at the moment not change. Trump will still have to deliver on that anger but it's a long way off and it's currently manageable and it's providing an outlet for those who think they have no voice to let off steam. But here to channel that anger and disillusionment the U.K gave the public a bye election dressed up as a referendum where they decided to show government how they felt about the level of their disenfranchisement. Stop cynically trying to profit from this uncertainty Mr Gawne via a false independence debate when history shows that you have failed in all areas of service delivery and all areas of democracy delivery. We need to stop listening to failures, and start looking for creative ways to work this through.

Not at all. My opening post was a request for guidance. As yet none has been imparted.

I'm not suggesting a political agenda but certainly an inconsistent one when the press is reporting on these appearances in the first place.

It looks like English, but it's not. I think you're perhaps confusing grammar with actual language.

The eighth word was reports. It was written in English.

I get out frequently. I am merely asking a question about inconsistency. You would think that similar reports and situations would be dealt with similarly.

So there have been a few media reports of court appearances that have appeared in the local press recently which have been repeated on here. Most relate to people who have been required to appear in court on varied charges and where that appearence had been reported on outlets such as Manx Radio or Energy FM. Discussions centric on some of those reports have had threads that have been locked down on here. Others have had threads that have continued on for pages and pages. All of those cases would appear to be sub judice in one way or another (i.e., the court cases are ongoing and nobody has been actually convicted of anything as yet). Yet the mainstream Manx media has reported the initial facts including names: specifically that X has been required to appear in court on charges of Y. So is there a criteria that applies to whether a discussion on a case reported publicly should continue or not? You would assume that closing a debate on a subject like an appearence for alleged child neglect would rate higher than someone accused of something like mere harassment? Yet one subject appears to be locked down, when another isn't. Therefore it does all look rather inconsistent. Or is it the case that whichever person throws the most excrement around gets to have a thread closed? It's all very confusing. Are there any lawyers (or armchair lawyers) on here who can provide any guidance?

I have since read past page 223 and in general I agree with your interpretation of the 'facts' as transcribed in the report. However, you have to agree that it paints the picture of a somewhat Kafka-esque episode of events involving a man who apparently stood in to help a woman who was being bullied by her boss, and who then got caught up in his own serious bullying and harassment investigation. I also assume from that report that the whole thing was instigated by the woman who was originally accused of the bullying who didn't subsequently appreciate Houghton bullying her? That's hardly a credible standpoint from which to invoke a witch hunt. In fact this sort of thing could only happen in the screwed up, infantile, corridors of power where someone who has been smeared often sets out to smear the smearer even more in an attempt to discredit them and play down their own situation. The whole situation appears to be horrendously contrived and does everyone a discredit. It also makes the Chief Clerks Office look like a glorified play school for people who should know better. As for Wild why would you countersign a letter you said you did not agree with and subsequently withdrew? If you didn't agree with it you shouldn't have signed the damn thing. Claiming latterly that you withdrew it verbally just appears extremely cowardly. They only have his word for that as he evidently put his name to the letter originally. That this took months and months and 400 pages of report to arrive at the decision 'Sir, you must apologize' is simply a complete embarrassment to all concerned. This government, and the wider collection of people administering our government, is simply not fit for purpose in any respect.

I does look like a typical hatchet job from the civil service gnomes who object to being told what to do by people they have no respect for. To be honest it's hard to even work out what this lady's actual issue is (I tried to work it out but I got bored by page 223). But after 414 exhaustive pages of basically nothing you can probably summarize the circumstances as: Woman kicks off about something Someone seems to have failed to deal with it properly Woman continues to kick off Someone seems to continue to fail to deal with it properly A complaint is made as it's easier than someone in a managerial position trying to deal with the problem Certain people are told to back off as a complaint has been made Those people don't take the threat to back off seriously as they're still not sure what the real issue is or that it's a big issue Woman continues to kick off It all goes to a Tynwald committee as those dealing with it get fed up of dealing with the situation. Minster takes the arse that it a relatively minor issue has ended up at committee Minister tries to get civil servants and committee to back down Minister fails and the civil servants get pissed off at not getting their own way Committee meets and 414 page report is written Everyone falls asleep halfway through reading it As it's not clear what really happened, and nobody is really that bothered, the injured party leaks the findings to the press Press falls asleep half way through report and just publishes what they're told to as it's easier Someone updates Wikipedia to rub salt in the wounds Even MF readers struggle to work out what it's all about The basic assumption, as people can't be bothered reading the 414 page report, is that Houghton is a bad man Wikipedia and Johnson Press goes on permanent record that Houghton is a bad man Houghton isn't liked so everyone agrees he's a bad man