Jump to content

Manx Radio


Desperate Dan

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Putting aside the visceral hatred you have for Howard Quayle ( and myself) is it not reasonable for him to seek an apology ( without brackets)?

In general if you are accused of something which turns out not to be true (in this case a breach of restrictions) then surely an apology is appropriate whether or not you are an oaf, or even an insufferable arsehole.

On a more general note I certainly think Manx Radio should be apologizing for the crap that is the “horse racing “ thing on a Friday morning. Why Reynolds and Reynolds lend their name to it I cannot understand. It is the most cringeworthy thing I think I ever have heard on a radio station.

 

Equally, could you not argue, that as a representative of the people, you are bound to higher standards than others?

Excusing oneself upon a technicality could be seen as crass.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Equally, could you not argue, that as a representative of the people, you are bound to higher standards than others?

Excusing oneself upon a technicality could be seen as crass.

Not sure it is an argument, but fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Equally, could you not argue, that as a representative of the people, you are bound to higher standards than others?

Excusing oneself upon a technicality could be seen as crass.

I’m not sure about your comment about excusing oneself upon a technicality.

The Isle of Man Police said that no restrictions were breached by the Chief Minister and following consultations with the Attorney Generals office they would not be taking any action. 
Doesn’t sound like HQ was excusing himself, nor a technicality. 
Seems like an interpretation of the law from the highest authority.

Yes as a representative of the people you should be bound to higher standards, but nor should you be any more subject to false allegations than the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I’m not sure about your comment about excusing oneself upon a technicality.

The Isle of Man Police said that no restrictions were breached by the Chief Minister and following consultations with the Attorney Generals office they would not be taking any action. 
Doesn’t sound like HQ was excusing himself, nor a technicality. 
Seems like an interpretation of the law from the highest authority.

Yes as a representative of the people you should be bound to higher standards, but nor should you be any more subject to false allegations than the rest of us.

Apart from the regulations not giving the manager of a health facility the discretion to exclude the requirement. Skelly (or was it Hooper?)  posted the regulation at the time.  The guidance was contradictory it would seem.

It was definitely ill-advised. 

More than that, his later comments about MR were a veiled threat for them to toe the line and now he won't be interviewed by them.  Petty, egotistical and bordering on an attempt to control the press.  

Good job he is going. 

 

  • Like 15
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

More than that, his later comments about MR were a veiled threat for them to toe the line and now he won't be interviewed by them.  Petty, egotistical and bordering on an attempt to control the press.  

Good job he is going. 

 

You may see his comments as a veiled threat but as I have said on a couple of previous occasions I see them as a reminder to Manx Radio that as they receive this subvention they have a duty of care to those who fund them ( you and I) to get things right.

Thus I can’t agree with you that his comments were petty, egotistical and bordering on an attempt to control the press. I regard them as a reminder to MR to report truthfully.

So really it is a matter of how you interpret his comments. I choose my interpretation, you will choose yours.

Similarly you feel it is a good job he is going, a lot of the populace feel they have good reason to be grateful to him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You may see his comments as a veiled threat but as I have said on a couple of previous occasions I see them as a reminder to Manx Radio that as they receive this subvention they have a duty of care to those who fund them ( you and I) to get things right.

Thus I can’t agree with you that his comments were petty, egotistical and bordering on an attempt to control the press. I regard them as a reminder to MR to report truthfully.

So really it is a matter of how you interpret his comments. I choose my interpretation, you will choose yours.

Similarly you feel it is a good job he is going, a lot of the populace feel they have good reason to be grateful to him.

 

 

So not Head Bully in a CoMin full of bullies then? Who didn't bully Colas on the Richmond Hill surface dressing fiasco before Colas fought back with email evidence? Who didn't bully Dr Glover? Who aren't bullying Dr Ewart? Who didn't try to bully the suppliers of the original replacement NSC slides until they were forced to buy a second set that were actually the right size? Who have shown their true fascist colours on the matter of a perfectly legitimate Manx Radio question (and who have been equally intransigent with Paul Moulton and others)?

The same Council of Ministers that have overspent and underdelivered on the Promenade 'scheme'? Are throwing money at creating a glass palace in Liverpool when a few posh Portacabins would have done perfectly well? And who have now thrown their hands up on Covid and told us (effectively) it's every man for himself?

I don't know who you are (unlike others it seems) but I suspect you're living in a parallel universe where everyone is equal, except CoMin members who are more equal than the others.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You may see his comments as a veiled threat but as I have said on a couple of previous occasions I see them as a reminder to Manx Radio that as they receive this subvention they have a duty of care to those who fund them ( you and I) to get things right.

Thus I can’t agree with you that his comments were petty, egotistical and bordering on an attempt to control the press. I regard them as a reminder to MR to report truthfully.

So really it is a matter of how you interpret his comments. I choose my interpretation, you will choose yours.

Similarly you feel it is a good job he is going, a lot of the populace feel they have good reason to be grateful to him.

 

 

So, because MR receive a subvention, they should apply a different standard of reporting?   

Was it untruthful?  He went to Hospice within 10 days of returning from an off island visit.  That was contrary to the regulations, the fact that the guidance was contradictory doesn't negate that, but it makes it difficult to support a prosecution.  See the Steam Packet fiasco for earlier precedent. 

In his position, it may have been better to say that there seemed to be a contradiction, but he acted in good faith observing mitigating measures whilst there and would cooperate with an investigation.  When the outcome of the investigation was known, then he should have said that even though the investigation cleared him, it appears that guidelines were contradictory and he would take steps to ensure guidance did not create anomalies such as the one he had inadvertantly fallen into.

That would be an appropriate leaderly response, not throwing a tantrum at MR. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That would be an appropriate leaderly response, not throwing a tantrum at MR. 

Indeed it would But Quayle couldn’t lead a horse to water.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MR are insisting that what they reported was merely factual, and that those facts were related via another government department.

Is this not the case?

I don't see Quayle's response as a "veiled threat" little else but a petulant and haughty reaction to MR's temerity in telling it like it was. Nothing more. I doubt he has the traction to directly influence MR's continuing subvention, though it's entirely possible that in somewhat pompous fashion he might like to project an impression that he could. His response did carry the suggestion of influence, as indicated by the comments here and elsewhere.

What is worrying is his alluding to his hope that laws should be strengthened to prevent or even punish such reportage, which indicates a certain level of contempt for a free press and openess, and is entirely undemocratic.

Quayle's out soon anyway and it'll likely blow over with barely a whimper. The focus will be on some other upstanding worthy presiding over us.

With little change.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, quilp said:

MR are insisting that what they reported was merely factual, and that those facts were related via another government department.

Is this not the case?

I don't see Quayle's response as a "veiled threat" little else but a petulant and haughty reaction to MR's temerity in telling it like it was. Nothing more. I doubt he has the traction to directly influence MR's continuing subvention, though it's entirely possible that in somewhat pompous fashion he might like to project an impression that he could. His response did carry the suggestion of influence, as indicated by the comments here and elsewhere.

What is worrying is his alluding to his hope that laws should be strengthened to prevent or even punish such reportage, which indicates a certain level of contempt for a free press and openess, and is entirely undemocratic.

Quayle's out soon anyway and it'll likely blow over with barely a whimper. The focus will be on some other upstanding worthy presiding over us.

With little change.

It was a misjudgment to go. Just like Boris and his trial scheme to avoid isolation, which he had to row back from. It identifies insensitivity to the public mood. A case of do as I say, not do as I do. Of course, most of its down to his (mis)handlers.

It sent out the wrong message. And his reaction to it being identified and reported makes him look petty.

He wasn’t in a clinical area, or a ward, nor did he meet patients. But there are immunocompromised patients in hospice.

I suspect he’s tired, worn out, maybe demob happy. It must be a difficult job, even at the best of times. And the last 12 months hasn’t been the best of times. I’d be snappy as well, in all honesty.

I chaired a tribunal on Nobles site last week. Not in a clinical or ward area. Boardroom. No patient present. The reception staff weren’t bothered about me signing the declaration that I had no symptoms or been off Island, I had to remind them it was necessary. We were made to wear masks and Perspex face screens all day. I did notice that the two medically qualified people present wore their masks “below the nose”, for a substantial part of the proceedings, however.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

 Of course, most of its down to his (mis)handlers.

Whilst it is true that his mishandlers are themselves clearly bereft of common sense and political nous, a judicious and alert leader would independently recognize an ill-considered proposal.

As I say, a judicious and alert leader.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...