The Lurker

I think that there is a big difference between not releasing information and ‘keeping matters quiet.’ I don’t believe that the Police have actively ‘kept quiet’ any details about the recent events; there would be no point as information will leak out anyway. The Police have to protect their investigation; if details are released too early it can as Derek says jeopardise any potential prosecution and undermine evidence provided by witnesses; for example (and this is only my understanding from watching police stuff on the telly) if a witness provides evidence following a media release it can be questioned as to whether they acquired their knowledge from actually witnessing an incident or from the media. I don’t understand how people have come to the conclusion that we the public have some sort of right to know about every incident; we all want to know; I’m just as nosey as the next person; but I don’t believe that I have a right to information about things that are not any of my business. Obviously if there was a deranged killer on the loose targeting middle aged slightly overweight men then I feel I would have a right to be informed. In regards to the Courts; I’ve attended Court on several occasions in the public gallery; usually in relation to matters that have or may have an impact on my work; I’ve never been made to feel that my presence was undesired; the Court Usher will normally have a chat though to ensure that anyone viewing knows what is acceptable behaviour. As for the Usher accusing people of being nosey; why not? They are after all; being nosey.

Probably not going to be a very popular opinion but I don’t agree that we have a right to know everything that’s going on as it happens or immediately after it happens. Information always comes out in the end and as long as people who have a genuine need to know about an event are informed (next of kin or those at risk etc) then I see no reason at all why the wider public should be told in detail what has happened; especially as the Police may not know exactly what has happened themselves. It strikes me as just people being a bit nosey.

Which is fortunate as that's all we'll have to eat after a no deal crash out.

Proving that they’ll publicly throw their ‘principles’ to the wind if it improves their chances of furthering their personal agendas and political ambitions.

I wasn’t questioning why you’d posted it; I was wondering why the paper has seen fit to repeat what appears to be the same story as when he was arrested. When I saw the post I assumed a development in the case.

I'm just following May's lead and chasing unicorns.

Is there any reason why they’ve seen fit to repeat this story? It doesn’t look as though anything has changed since last time.

I’ve only just ventured beyond the realm of the Local News forum so have only read the last dozen or so pages on this thread. I think it’s clear that May’s deal won’t go through and that the only people who actually want a no deal Brexit are disaster capitalists and people who are a bit hard of thinking. Whether you’re for leave or remain the only sensible option seems to me to be to revoke Article 50 allowing time for a general election so HMG can return to Brussels to begin a re-negotiation without the Damoclean sword of Article 50 hanging over everyone’s head. If the EU pull the ‘we won’t negotiate unless Article 50 is triggered’ stunt again we can simply gerrymander with our veto until they agree to come to the table. Or realise that remaining within the EU is probably the best deal available.

I agree; and less likely to result in minced seals than at The Sound.

Politicians cannot be relied upon to take seriously any issue that impacts beyond the next election; see the adjacent Island for an extreme example. Older voters cannot be relied upon to take seriously any issue that will not fully impact until they are long dead; see the adjacent Island for an extreme example. I believe that as a first world country we have a responsibility to lead the way in demonstrating that we can generate electricity without the need to burn hydro-carbons to do so; I appreciate that the building of green energy generators has a significant carbon footprint but this will diminish over time; if green energy is used to build green energy generators then it is greener (apologies for making a clunky point!) We have ample wind, significant tides and a reasonable amount of sunlight. The Isle of Man is the perfect test-bed for demonstrating both progressive politics and an environmentally sustained society. We just have to wait for the quasi-Tory voters and politicians to get the message. All power to the kids who protested at Tynwald.

I’m really struggling to see why some posters cannot understand the point of the two posts made by the police in relation to firearms; unless as I suspect it’s just a handy tool to continue the general anti-police sentiment that some forum users like to pursue at any given opportunity. The point that I believe that the Police are trying to highlight is that ultimately it does not matter whether or not a firearm is lawfully possessed it is how the manner of that possession is interpreted by witnesses; both Police and civilian at that time; the ‘split-second decision’ that is oft referenced. If there is an apparent immediate threat to life the Police have a duty to act upon the information available to them at that time it is irrelevant if a subsequent investigation reveals that the gun was an imitation. Transporting a toy gun to your grandkids is OK; but not tucked in the waistband of your trousers like some plastic gangster; using your imitation firearm to play soldiers (airsoft) with your equally strange mates on private land is OK; openly possessing it in a pub is not. The Police are right to use social media to point out the potential dangers to both public and the offender of openly possessing imitation firearms in public. Yes; there are circumstances in which a person may possess a firearm or an imitation firearm legally but expecting a police officer who is confronted with an individual in possession of what appears to be a real gun (and I take issue with any keyboard warrior who thinks that in the heat of the moment they would be able to distinguish between real and imitation) and has to deal with that individual accordingly; and that’s trained police officers; the effect of these ‘toys’ on the general public is terrifying. Both the instances referenced in this thread fall well outside ‘reasonable excuse’ by any standard and the people concerned are extremely fortunate that they don’t live in a jurisdiction where all police officers carry firearms as at the very least they will have had a very real firearm pointed at them and may have been shot. Many people (especially in the States) have been fatally shot by the Police for less. Given the recent upwards trend in shootings all around the world the public have a right not to be put in fear by some Walter Mitty idiot who thinks that carrying a realistic toy gun in public makes them some kind of hard man.; especially given that on the Isle of Man it is far more likely that the gun is real compared to the UK.

I’m not really into my driving so I won’t claim I know how quickly ten miles can be covered but I suspect that you may be wrong on that.

When the nearest copper is ten miles away and you’re being burgled/beaten up/whatever then you’ll want the copper to not be on a pushbike.

Awarding parole is always a leap of faith but the only time I can recall a spectacular failure would be Kitchen (spelling?) but I’m happy to be corrected.

We only have the landline for the interweb; haven’t plugged a phone into it for years for that very reason. I’d like to see MT offer a broadband only service as most folk rely on their mobiles now.