Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Even if, like now, the criticism is unfair and unreasonable,

 

It is only your opinion that the criticism is unfair and unreasonable. Others including myself are of the opinion that it is fair and reasonable. It is not a fact that I am right or that you are right.

 

Forget the individual or the offence but I think that if you are a politicion responsible for a uholding a particular area, stand up and make a speach about an issue and then within 24hrs go and do the complete opposite then it does make your position very difficult. I do not think that merely apologising was enough, in my opinion he should have set an example and stepped down showing that there was a consequence for his action. Anybody can apologise and carry on as if nothing has happened.

 

If he remained a minister but in a different department I would have had no issues.

Just because I disagree with what's going on now with regards the length of time involved and the continous bombardment of inuendos/sick jokes or in other words - bullying, it doesn't mean that I disagree with the original issue at that time and actually agree with Albert or others point of view that it would have been better that a sideways move should have been done then.

 

But that was ages ago and apart from some valid and decent points made, most of the last 100 or so pages are filled with none issue viewpoints, where the angle is just to keep the post in view, maybe so they can show their copied CCTV video off, maybe to make a political point and maybe others where just trolling to see what impishness will create the biggest reaction.

 

But the original question stands; Does anyone think that what they say on the various forums will have any affect now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can give you my background on this, if you like. In recent years, as I have aged, I find myself becoming increasingly angered by the attitude and behaviour of our elected representatives at nationa

Hold on a second. Fair enough, Home Affairs Minister goes to alcohol strategy discussion, and maybe the fact two ministerial colleagues are attending too is okay (even if their departments aren't dire

Still think you are missing the point. If a minister is found to be lacking in area specifically related to their portfolio then he should go. If the agriculture minister was a farmer who wasn't foll

Posted Images

 

It's called life Albert. If you want to create the perfect race, then go ahead but please not from your own genes as quite frankly you sound like a dull pretentious prick who needs to get a life outside Manx Forums. You are definitely a bully though and when the police investigate this thread I would love to see you in court explaining how outraged you are about the whole matter.

 

Bully.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this thread had died a death inbetween times as we approach xmas without a shadow of a doubt it would have re-surfaced. My projection is that it will continue to re-appear for as long as he stays in office. Because AT is absolutely correct when he states you have a right to expect certain standards from your elected officials. So JW only has himself to blame.

 

Also I can guarantee he will continue to be pilloried until he does the decent thing and resigns.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I disagree with what's going on now with regards the length of time involved and the continous bombardment of inuendos/sick jokes or in other words - bullying, it doesn't mean that I disagree with the original issue at that time and actually agree with Albert or others point of view that it would have been better that a sideways move should have been done then.

 

But that was ages ago and apart from some valid and decent points made, most of the last 100 or so pages are filled with none issue viewpoints, where the angle is just to keep the post in view, maybe so they can show their copied CCTV video off, maybe to make a political point and maybe others where just trolling to see what impishness will create the biggest reaction.

 

But the original question stands; Does anyone think that what they say on the various forums will have any affect now?

 

It is unlikely anything said on a forum will make a difference but what is for certain if nothing is said then nothing will happen.

 

I think the issue will remain a live issue whilst JW remain the minister for Home Affairs. His actions last year will affect the ability of him or his department getting the message across about responsible

drinking. In addition everytime some is arrested and charged by those he is resonsible for with being drunk and incapable some will raise an eyebrow or question.

 

The Chief Minister got critisised for Mount Murray in a report, was never charged etc etc however that issue continues to be raised when people think it is relevent even though it was "ages ago". It is right that is not forgotten, equally this case.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What enforcement action do you want? He paid for the damage.

 

People fall asleep on public transport everyday, sickness is not uncommon, and thankfully these people aren't criminalised. Don't create a new group of criminals just to score a petty political point.

 

"and thankfully these people aren't criminalised"

 

Am I getting a different weekly paper or online news report from the rest of the island.

 

There are weekly reports of youngsters being charged and convicted for similar offences, and a criminal record or a caution (on the island) is for life.

 

Don't tell me some people still believe that Juan was tired and a bit poorly due to the bumpy bus ride (Damn bus drivers), I thought Juans apology had put paid to that.

 

I agree that no one should be criminalised for a one off event such as this, and it was good that Juan apologised and paid for the clean up.

 

But why cannot everyone have the same opportunity to apologise and compensate where required, without appearing in court and receiving a lifetime reminder.

 

Like I said when this first happened, as much as some off you want this to go away, whilst people are still being convicted for the same offence, it never will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody I know of has been charged with throwing up on a bus. But I've seen it happen before and since. In fact Juan is the only one I've heard of paying a clean up fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When this first happened, I pointed out weekly, charges and convictions from the local press for similar, and usually lesser offences, ie falling asleep on a bench or in a bus shelter whilst under the influence, (no vomiting involved).

 

If Juan thinks that an apology and compensation is all that is required, why is he not trying to pass an amendment to stop others "who are not protected with their MHK status" receiving a lifetime stain on their characters for having a little more than they can hold.

 

Or maybe he is and it will be publicised shortly, but I will not be holding my breath.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasnt charged because no one reported the offence to the Police.

 

So there you have it, to be charged an offence has to be reported.

 

Fact of the day. From the horses mouth at Police HQ.

 

Is that why Jimmy Savile wasnt charged at the time because the alleged offences had not been reported?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasnt charged because no one reported the offence to the Police.

 

So there you have it, to be charged an offence has to be reported.

 

Fact of the day. From the horses mouth at Police HQ.

 

 

You're being sarcastic are'nt you?whatever.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

No i asked Deputy Chief Inspector Gary Roberts why he was not charged.

 

He advised that the police investigate every offence that gets reported to them.

 

I assume therefore that it wasnt reported to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No i asked Deputy Chief Inspector Gary Roberts why he was not charged.

 

He advised that the police investigate every offence that gets reported to them.

 

I assume therefore that it wasnt reported to them.

 

Is that not the point?

 

For what ever reason the bus driver could not wake him up so he drove him back to Douglas whilst a decician was made what to do.

 

If it was Jo public, and they were found at the end of the journey in that condition then dont you think that it would have been reported to the police?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • ans locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...