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

maynragh

Regulars
  • Content Count

    746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

445 Excellent

About maynragh

  • Rank
    MF Addicted

Recent Profile Visitors

1,250 profile views
  1. Hello John. If the link doesn't work as you say, can you say where you got your PDF copy? Was it emailed to you? That information is sort of needed for some people to keep their businesses running.
  2. Unions have apparently just requested they close, so I don't imagine it will be much longer.
  3. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed the slightly pithy tone of the recent 'don't panic' announcements by our senior ministers. Ministers of the same government that informed us less than 6 months ago they effectively don't have any contingency plans in the event of shortages. People would be far less inclined to panic if they had been given any trustworthy information to confirm they didn't need to, but of course they cannot be given any assurances because our government hasn't planned for such a situation. Seems fairly simple to me. Maybe I'm missing something. http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/OPHansardIndex1821/4025.pdf I have found references to contingencies put in place after Chernobyl, but I can't seem to find any detail on what they are / were, anyone know?
  4. Did you find that explanation of injustice in a text book? Couldn't really be any better.
  5. Hopefully the full report will explain why this transgression was considered "smaller" than the lady who also made an honest mistake and crossed the road in the same year, who did not ignore the instruction of a marshal, but was convicted and fined. It is the inconsistency which creates the perception of injustice. It is also the inconsistency which creates a problem for the organisers. I don't know what the internationally accepted instruction for "STOP" is, but I regularly stop traffic in the course of running my business with no authority to do so more than putting on a high viz and standing in the middle of the road. I must remember to look out for bailiffs and marina builders in future.
  6. There is no indication in that news report that the person concerned wasn't on the road and didn't ignore instructions - so this can be seen to be an unjust and dangerous decision. If the organisers of the event have to accept that standing in the middle of the road waving a flag and shouting instructions is ambiguous then that creates a very big problem for the event as a whole (or it would do in any normal situation) as it effectively makes it impossible to secure the course. Presumably you feel this person and the others mentioned in the report (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=49025&headline='It's extortion' says TT visitor fined £1,500 for crossing closed road&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019) should now have their convictions overturned @On The Bus?
  7. Personally I'd say the IOM has / had potentially quite similar USPs - in terms of what has driven their recovery. The main advantage they have is geo-thermal energy, but that's set against greater isolation and even higher costs. The real advantage they have is a more politically engaged population, which probably comes from a greater sense of collective identity and the fact that they got properly kicked in the nuts.
  8. It can be done in more difficult circumstances than we face, as Iceland has proved... https://www.ft.com/content/26270ef4-0a35-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/16/iceland-tourists-tech-resilient-bank-from-brink-financial-crisis Though probably only when the population start to stand up for themselves, so maybe not applicable to IOM.
  9. Correct. And the fact he was not convicted doesn't prove he wasn't breaking the law or change the fact that his treatment might be considered unjust and dangerous unless we assume the evidence itself was flawed. Every now and then I get pulled for speeding. Almost always I get slap on the wrist and told to pay more attention. Does that mean I'm not breaking the law when I'm caught speeding? No, of course not. If my mate is driving down the same road, on the same day, doing the same speed, gets pulled by the same officer ten minutes after me and gets booked, is he going to perceive that outcome to be unjust when he finds out I got away with the same infraction? Yes, of course. Am I more likely to make the same mistake again (and possibly encourage others to by my actions) because I 'got away with it' - thereby effectively reducing the safety of others? Hmmmm...
  10. The ruling is definitive. If you are not questioning the evidence and you understand the law, then you understand he was breaking the law. The fact that he was not convicted of breaking the law doesn't mean he wasn't breaking it, it just means that the court doesn't consider it in the public interest to punish him for it. The problem is they have punished other people for similar infringements, ergo it's inconsistent. The inconsistency is perceived to be unfair.
  11. Ah, OK, I didn't realise you were questioning the evidence. Yes, maybe it was a case of mistaken identity after all. As you were.
  12. Was he on a closed road? Was he instructed to leave it?
  13. Unless he wasn't actually there, and didn't actually drive on a closed road and ignore instructions not to, there was a case to answer. The point is that the court appear to have decided it isn't in the public interest to convict him, which is different from stating he wasn't in the wrong or indeed that the evidence was incorrect. This is where the problem lies because the public can rightly point out that others have been punished more stringently for what appear to be lesser transgressions of the same law.
×
×
  • Create New...