Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
hissingsid

Interesting questions tabled for next weeks Tynwald

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

You mean that Facebook group run by a mental paranoid alcoholic?

Can you narrow it down at little?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Can you narrow it down at little?

Yes, the vile and disgusting d!ck wi!pe who volunteers at the CatAids Sanctuary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

 

A5561DD5-A466-43E4-8651-62CEA414A0A6.jpeg

Many a true word said in jest. The LibVan Party are a bunch of commie scum, just like the Green Party, and all the retards in the "Climate Change Coalition". Anybody with an IQ above 30 can see they're really just a group of far leftist bigots who are trying to dress up communism and socialism under the disguise of environmentalism. In reality, concern for the environment and animal welfare is not a monopoly of the far left. Caring for animals and the environment is actually very much in line with conservative philosophy.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

Many a true word said in jest. The LibVan Party are a bunch of commie scum, just like the Green Party, and all the retards in the "Climate Change Coalition". Anybody with an IQ above 30 can see they're really just a group of far leftist bigots who are trying to dress up communism and socialism under the disguise of environmentalism. In reality, concern for the environment and animal welfare is not a monopoly of the far left. Caring for animals and the environment is actually very much in line with conservative philosophy.

Kate Beecroft far left? Seriously? Just because the party has 'Liberal' in the name doesn't actually mean they are.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hissingsid said:

It has been pointed out by Isle of Man News and Politics that there is a subject that could be interesting, I think perhaps it is the introduction of penalties for people who threaten or make remarks about individuals online, at least I think this is the interpretation.    Anyone else like to read it and see if this is a decent summing up.   

Very difficult topic. Abusive messaging via the Internet has genuinely been the cause of teenage suicides and significant mental harm. It has been used to persecute private citizens who are not in any way "public figures". There are defamation laws in place on the island but they can be very difficult and expensive to invoke - beyond the resources of the man in the street. 

Would be very interested to hear what @John Wright thinks about this one. I've known of a few cases where the Police have not been able to act or the AG's office has determined that there is too little chance of success to make it worthwhile prosecuting via criminal law, but civil action has been too expensive to contemplate. Many genuine victims are not and never have been politicians or public figures.

Obviously it could become a snowflake's charter but to say that we don't need something more than we have would be to ignore the real suffering caused to some victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

Would be very interested to hear what @John Wright thinks about this one. I've known of a few cases where the Police have not been able to act or the AG's office has determined that there is too little chance of success to make it worthwhile prosecuting via criminal law, but civil action has been too expensive to contemplate. Many genuine victims are not and never have been politicians or public figures.

Obviously it could become a snowflake's charter but to say that we don't need something more than we have would be to ignore the real suffering caused to some victims.

I’d be interested in JWs views too. Just been reading up and seems only here and NZ have this (us only proposed). It isn’t even on statute in the UK so it does make you wonder why Hooper is so keen to get it added in. Most of this online bullying is by kids to kids so you’d have to question the effectiveness anyway. Does he want to see 15 year olds jailed for 2 years for childish playground spats that move online? That said it would make it easier for people to deal with internet dicks like James Corrin et all as even if they have no assets they could be banged up for being abusive arseholes. 

Edited by MrPB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MrPB said:

I’d be interested in JWs views too. Just been reading up and seems only here and NZ have this (us only proposed)

Maybe it was something HQ picked up during his antipodean foray... :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Kate Beecroft far left? Seriously? Just because the party has 'Liberal' in the name doesn't actually mean they are.

Kate Beecroft is a right-winger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LibVan aren't left wing or right wing, they're fascists and they can articulate their fascist policies both via left wing and right wing talking points.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

Very difficult topic. Abusive messaging via the Internet has genuinely been the cause of teenage suicides and significant mental harm. It has been used to persecute private citizens who are not in any way "public figures". There are defamation laws in place on the island but they can be very difficult and expensive to invoke - beyond the resources of the man in the street. 

Would be very interested to hear what @John Wright thinks about this one. I've known of a few cases where the Police have not been able to act or the AG's office has determined that there is too little chance of success to make it worthwhile prosecuting via criminal law, but civil action has been too expensive to contemplate. Many genuine victims are not and never have been politicians or public figures.

Obviously it could become a snowflake's charter but to say that we don't need something more than we have would be to ignore the real suffering caused to some victims.

It’s a very difficult balance. Remember this is a privately owned forum. No one has the right to Membership or absolute freedom of speech. Forum owners have certain protections.

This is my personal view. I don’t speak for any of the moderators or owner.

Moderation here is very light. Generally only reactive. There are some idiot posters who think they are in the pub or the front room and forget that what they post is publicly visible, and that they can get us, and themselves in trouble.

Other sites and pages are much more rowdy and or assertively moderated, for good or ill.

There are others who just tediously post stupidity and turn of the screw tit for tat material.

There are yet others who deliberately post provocatively and are confrontational to the moderators.

Others who think they have a god given right to post bleat if they are suspended or posts removed. There’s one or two who clearly have mental health issues and can’t let it go. We had someone here who posted under at least 100 aliases over a 5 year period. Total nuisance.

I see on FB that someone banned by JamesCorrin is obsessing on another page and setting up their own page. Good luck to them.

I’m a member of a number of pages in areas where I have family connections. Many are much more pathetic than anything ever on here. Especially about crime. The speculation about what has happened, where, who to, who by is pushed to extremes and attempted to be justified on public safety grounds and right to know. 

The administrator tries to close down, and the attacks on him have to be seen to be believed. He eventually bans a few people. They then set up alternative pages, where they spend most of their time attacking the previous page and it’s administrators and posting really inadvisable crime stuff.

Why inadvisable? Well because of the damage it could do to fair trial.

We get police requests, to remove, from time to time. So does the administrator of the page I’m thinking of. It’s hard work. When I gave up for a while  in October 2017 it was not just health, but dangerous speculation about a serious crime, where some posters just wanted to push boundaries after I’d removed the original.

Incidentally there are now 10, or more, XYZ Past & Present pages with additional words, uncensored, no rules, unmoderated, etc. Many have only 1 or 2 embittered members banned from the original page. At some stage someone will post something truly idiotic and the people responsible for the new page will have heavy police breathing down their neck. Then they may understand.

OK, that’s all background. I think the section is insidious, it’s very poorly worded. It can be used against anything.It’ll give administrators and administrators headaches.Its a wimps and complainers charter. However I do understand that there is horrid cyber bullying going on.Frankly it’s aimed at moderators when we take a stance, in a mild and mainly snide way. Some of the things posted about politicos aren’t nice, but they are in the public eye. We’ve had one, or two complainers, and one serial one. Don’t speculate. I don’t want to deal with another whinge.

I think that the current law is sufficient, along with FB and other social media sites tightening up on some sickening content.

Lots of people need to learn that there is no such thing as freedom of speech. There are restrictions, more restrictions are on the way. I think we are at the high water mark. There is going to be a reaction against bullying and fake news, especially from the ultra left and right, to whom truth is anathema. But the genie is out the bottle. It’ll be hard to close down the conspiracy theorists, the 9/11 ers , the flat eathers, those who twist a whole concocted construct from a deliberate misquote to suit a perverse agenda, the disaffected, the plain mischeivious.

It used to be fun. Not sure it is any more.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrPB said:

It’s actually the PAG that raised it. James Corrin seems to have just shared it. It would appear that Mr Hooper seeks to stop any form of anonymous online criticism. A real snowflakes charter which will keep the police busy policing Twitter and Facebook for the next 50 years rather than devoting attention to real crime. 

7DFC06EC-8D6B-432A-822A-B8482C4589A7.jpeg

Hmm, I'm no lawyer, but:

If I were a schoolteacher, I think it might be an interesting exercise for a group of twelve-year-olds to critique that. I suspect at the end of the lesson the 12YOs would emerge as more competent legislators that this arse. The bloke is a Chartered Accountant FFS. He must have some experience of interpreting legislation. How could he possibly come up with something that laughably awful?

[Edit] Now do I have to go to prison for two years for posting that?

 

Edited by Yibble
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be fair to summarise ....that Hooper needs to define 'Harm' and give some reasoning as to what he is trying to achieve? If it is Child bullying, then he will get lots of sympathy for his efforts even if it is overkill.

The above assumptions that it is aimed at protecting Politicians from critisism is a typical over reaction.

 

I'm of the opinion that the AGs dept should be the ones to 'clean up' amendments and proposed legislation.

Edited by Kopek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

OK, that’s all background. I think the section is insidious, it’s very poorly worded. It can be used against anything.It’ll give administrators and administrators headaches.Its a wimps and complainers charter. However I do understand that there is horrid cyber bullying going on.Frankly it’s aimed at moderators when we take a stance, in a mild and mainly snide way. Some of the things posted about politicos aren’t nice, but they are in the public eye. We’ve had one, or two complainers, and one serial one. Don’t speculate. I don’t want to deal with another whinge.

I think that the current law is sufficient, along with FB and other social media sites tightening up on some sickening content.

Lots of people need to learn that there is no such thing as freedom of speech. There are restrictions, more restrictions are on the way. I think we are at the high water mark. There is going to be a reaction against bullying and fake news, especially from the ultra left and right, to whom truth is anathema. But the genie is out the bottle. It’ll be hard to close down the conspiracy theorists, the 9/11 ers , the flat eathers, those who twist a whole concocted construct from a deliberate misquote to suit a perverse agenda, the disaffected, the plain mischeivious.

It used to be fun. Not sure it is any more.

Thanks I enjoyed reading that. I’m glad you think it’s insidious as I too think it will just be abused and pretty much used as a wimps charter. Have the police got the resources to deal with a load of toothless Jeremy Kyle style chavs turning up and demanding that they do something about their latest Facebook war with Sharon that slag from number 10. Isn’t that what got Aimee Burns in Court? It’s likely to divert resource from investigating more serious crime where people are actually getting injured. In some cases I can see that it would work though as I agree lots of people on groups and forums do need to suffer a bit for the lies and abuse they generate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

So roughly how long have i left to send abuse to people before this law comes in? May as well get it done now while there's still time.

Dilli might as well just get the bus to Jurby and hand himself in. He’s not going to survive this! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Mr Hooper reads JW's post.

He would learn a lot about Reality Land....

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×