Jump to content

New Rules


ans
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, notwell said:
9 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

I didn't get to see the replies because he blocked me. I think i was absolutely correct to aay what I did. A friend messaged me last night to ask if I'd been sued yet. Did it cause a bit of controversy then? Good. I'd quite like to see the responses, feel free to screenshot and pm them if you want, links won't work, although I guess they've probably been deleted. I thought about really going on the attack, but don't really like getting involved on FB, Buster and co annoy me though, I find the debate here far better. 

What did you say?

You have to wonder who Buster is on here too. 

I very much doubt that buster is still posting on here. it would be pretty obvious wooden tit?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, James Hampton said:

Ta.

I wonder if our neighbourhood Bobby would comment...

@Derek Flint

I wonder if I might pick your brains...

Q1. If a pub landlord phoned the police and said they were having trouble with an individual who'd been barred but was persistently re-entering the premisses, what action would the police take? Nothing life threatening or violent, just persistently coming back when asked not to. 

Q2. Would the same apply to the privately owned digital public space that is MF? Owned and hosted locally, and the individual in question is also local. 

Thanks for your time. 

Ex bobby, perlease! 

The difference is the Licensing Act provides for a Landlord to have whomever he wants on his manor. Section 35 IIRC. Shops would have to issue a banning order - which I know has been done in the past for persistent shoplifters across. Digital space - no idea! Might be construed as harassment?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Ex bobby, perlease! 

The difference is the Licensing Act provides for a Landlord to have whomever he wants on his manor. Section 35 IIRC. Shops would have to issue a banning order - which I know has been done in the past for persistent shoplifters across. Digital space - no idea! Might be construed as harassment?

 

 

Thank you. Forgive my ignorance, but what is a banning order? Is that issued by the police, or the courts, or...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After my Post, I see a lot of people standing up for keeping Manx Forums going with Gladys being the Most Stewart Supporter.

With her around as one of the Moderating Staff, how could anyone consider Shutting These Forums Down???!!!

 

Please Keep Manx Freedom Of Speech Alive Here On Manx Forums!!!

 

3X3 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

It's issued by the courts JH

Not necessarily. There are Court imposed bans, but licensees can ban whomsoever they wish from their premises, and via the trade bodies LVA and MENA, those bans will be communicated to, and enforced by, other licensees.

As for shops, most of the multiples/big retailers such as Shoprite, Tesco, Boots, Coop, M&S etc tell shoplifters who get caught that they are banned. Remember a shop is private property. You are only allowed in at the shopkeepers discretion. They have control. If you later enter that is trespass, if you didn't leave the police could be called and deal with it as trespass ( which is criminal in IoM ) or behaviour tending breach of peace.

As for Manx Forums, well, you get banned, eventually. It also is a private space you use by invitation only. That invitation can be withdrawn at any time. And if you kept on coming back then proceedings under Protection from Harassment legislation are possible.  

Edited by John Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that would be fun. He certainly had no understanding of the legislation under which MF operated or the protections confered on ISP's, and the providers of bulletin boards and social media by international treaties and the Electronic Trsnsactions Act. 

What was worrying was his apparent admission, right at the end of the 3FM sound bite that the authorities thought it was important to monitor it.

Edited by John Wright
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

What was worrying was his apparent admission, right at the end of the 3FM Manx Radio sound bite that the authorities thought it was important to monitor it.

Yes, I appreciate that libel etc is a crime but it came across as more that the Police want to monitor what people are saying.... which is not too far away from a Police State of some Dystopian future

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I thought it was, generally, quite positive and supportive.   He monitored the Forums in his police information role, he didn't 'police' the forums - an unfortunate turn of phrase. 

Yeah I hope his intention was different from how it came across

But then he is a PR expert?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to suspect the Government Social Media person appointed to check and report on social media, or someone connected with our illustrious leaders is running a smear campaign against MF. Discredit and force infighting amongst the group members with an overall goal of getting it closed.

There's one for the conspiracy theorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ans unpinned and locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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