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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

355 Excellent

About maynragh

  • Rank
    MF Addicted

Recent Profile Visitors

962 profile views
  1. It's an interesting point I guess - an interesting comparison to UK politics anyway. In the UK and elsewhere politicians 'have' to maintain a certain amount of exposure, even that which they know is not going to show them in a good light, or they will be slated for hiding from the media / from questioning. Which presumably is considered to be even worse for their image than being embarrassed by someone who asks all the right questions. That just doesn't happen here does it? Is that because virtually everyone who gets access is somehow ultimately dependant on government support at some point, and those who aren't just don't care / it's not commercially viable / the people who pay for advertising are then also close to gov. A small island problem?
  2. The most annoying thing about the video is that the interviewer did not ask the obvious question - which has already been made in this thread. On the face of it the only clear point made is she has resigned to avoid collective responsibility. However as has been noted that would only bind her on matters relating to her dept wouldn't it. Even if she weren't happy with it, wouldn't it make more sense to bang the drum from inside (ultimately to the point of being fired if necessary) than to walk away like this - surely that would be the committed and morally right thing to do? Why did the interviewer not press her on this obvious point? There may be more to it, but this interview certainly doesn't help clarify matters.
  3. I would guess most of them think they're doing a great job, and are worth every penny. And most voters agree. Hasn't it always been that way?
  4. maynragh

    Beer Tent

    Different money. Same people calling the shots. Read the second to last post.
  5. maynragh

    Beer Tent

    I'm surprised nobody has made the connection in this thread...
  6. Always, apart from the screen shot I posted? OK. I agree, both examples in question did not have reasonable excuse. No question there. The problem is both of the media posts relating to the matter make no mention of that fact, instead choosing to focus on the appearance of the items, which is entirely irrelevant in law - that is essentially my concern. Do you understand?
  7. Nope. Looks like we've finally got there. You've changed your position from it being entirely illegal, so we have at least made some progress. It is NOT illegal to possess a firearm, or imitation firearm in public in the IOM as I originally stated, provided you have a reasonable excuse or authority - which you have now accepted. And the police are pursuing a very dangerous line by stating that they are making split second decisions in reference to images of two items that can both be entirely legal in the correct context. Glad you've caught up. You're welcome.
  8. That's precisely why the approach being taken is so dangerous. There is simply no logic to showing two photos of items which can both be held entirely legally and following it with the tag line - split second decisions. That's just madness. If they'd posted one photo of someone waving it round over their head or stuffed in their belt as they walk down Strand Street, and another photo of the same item securely boxed for transport - in accordance with their own advice - now that would be common sense. One illegal, one not. Simples.
  9. It does not. Please see above. The police even provide a handy example of a 'reasonable excuse' for those limited in imagination.
  10. Who's struggling here? The answer to the point is clear in the section you have quoted, and in the sections you have not. It is NOT illegal to posses a firearm or imitation firearm in public in the IOM so long as you have 'reasonable excuse'. What it looks like is not the concern in law.
  11. You almost sound scared to clarify the point you're trying to make. I wonder why.
  12. Please feel free to quote the section you think I've misunderstood.
  13. You don't need my take on it. The law is very clear and has already been linked to on this thread. I think the police advice page has also been linked to, but just in case, here it is... https://www.iompolice.im/advice/guidance-on-firearms/ Perhaps the officers concerned should just stick to pasting this link, as it's clearly far better thought through and factually correct.
  14. Oh, OK, so you don't understand the law in the country you live in. Fair enough.
  • Create New...