Jump to content

Middle


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

 

And yes, a touch pedantic. Dare I say, even snobbish. Language experts mostly believe that if what you're intending to communicate is clear through context, grammar and misspellings are a minor detail. 

Written language is about communicating a point, not organising characters in the correct order. :)

 

You are right. A little grammatical mistake would not have put me off voting for you.

But I don’t live ( and therefore couldn’t vote) in the constituency in which you were standing so I don’t have to consider all the other stuff if I had to make a decision as to who to vote for.

Good on you for trying though

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, quilp said:

Who cares, apart from you? 

It is an indication that people cant understand and implement a very, very simple document that they agreed to when putting themselves forward for election.

Hardly bodes well for someones ability to understand and influence complex legislation or drive the island forward if they cant understand and organise collecting a bit of signage within the legally allowed timescale does it?

If you are happy for people that dumb to represent us then good for you.  To me it highlights a total lack of ability around very simple tasks.

Edited by Ramseyboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

It is an indication that people cant understand and implement a very, very simple document that they agreed to when putting themselves forward for election.

 

But is the Code of Practice purely guidance so there is no legal requirement to remove within 2 days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lost Login said:

But is the Code of Practice purely guidance so there is no legal requirement to remove within 2 days?

Who cares?

It is the sort of task we would allocate to a new starter at work to see if they were basically competent or not.

"Read this.  Put some signs up, record where they are and then make sure they are taken down by the time it say in the document."

A pretty quick and accurate indicator of someones basic ability in my opinon.   I guess if you dont see an issue then you think its ok? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

W  I guess if you dont see an issue then you think its ok? 

I did not say that. They may be unsightly and be removed in a relatively quick time frame and I have no issue with you being of the opinion that they should be removed quicker but you said the non removal was a "breach of the regulations regards signage". I was querying whether that is actually true as I could only find guidance rather than a formal requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I did not say that. They may be unsightly and be removed in a relatively quick time frame and I have no issue with you being of the opinion that they should be removed quicker but you said the non removal was a "breach of the regulations regards signage". I was querying whether that is actually true as I could only find guidance rather than a formal requirement.

I would say it is pretty clear.

"Code of Practice in respect of election materials"

"This Code of Practice is made under Section 97(6) of the Elections (Keys and Local Authorities) Act 2020 (“the Act”)." Which reads "(6) The Returning Officer must prepare a code of practice in respect of the production of election materials."

"In addition to the requirement for bills, posters and placards and other campaign material to display the name of the publisher, there are also requirements as to where and how they can be displayed. Great care should be taken in recording where and how signage is placed."

"Requirements of the Act regarding election material"

 

"Non-compliance with the provisions of section 97 are an offence and a person who acts in contravention of them may be prosecuted, convicted summarily and liable to a fine."

"The display of election materials must comply with any guidance on election campaign publicity on the public highway and Manx Utilities property produced by the Department of Infrastructure and Manx Utilities."

"Bills, placards and posters that are not displayed on private land must be removed within 2 days of the date of the election."

Edited by Ramseyboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

I would say it is pretty clear.

"Code of Practice in respect of election materials"

"This Code of Practice is made under Section 97(6) of the Elections (Keys and Local Authorities) Act 2020 (“the Act”)." Which reads "(6) The Returning Officer must prepare a code of practice in respect of the production of election materials."

"In addition to the requirement for bills, posters and placards and other campaign material to display the name of the publisher, there are also requirements as to where and how they can be displayed. Great care should be taken in recording where and how signage is placed."

"Requirements of the Act regarding election material"

 

"Non-compliance with the provisions of section 97 are an offence and a person who acts in contravention of them may be prosecuted, convicted summarily and liable to a fine."

"The display of election materials must comply with any guidance on election campaign publicity on the public highway and Manx Utilities property produced by the Department of Infrastructure and Manx Utilities."

"Bills, placards and posters that are not displayed on private land must be removed within 2 days of the date of the election."

Clause 97 sets out matters which, as you state, if not complied with are an offence and covers such matters as including the name of the publisher on a sign, not posting in or on a polling station. Clause 97(6) reads as you stated above so the offence under the act would be the failure of the returning  officer to prepare a code of practice.  Having produced the code of practice the matters included in it are purely guidance unless specifically prohibited in the Act. There is no reference in the Act with regard to removing election materials so my reading remains that whilst the non removal is not in accordance of guidance it is not a "breach of the regulations regards signage". A breach of regulations is purely the matters set out in 97(2) and 97(3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

Bills, placards and posters that are not displayed on private land must be removed within 2 days of the date of the election

Whatever.

Its a simple requirement and if seeking or in elected office they should comply with it.  Failure to do so makes them fundamentally incompetent in my opinion.

I am not a lawyer or someone who has put myself up for public scrutiny.  Just a bloke who drives all over the island and has noticed that every other candidate has managed to do what was requested.  Hannifen even stated up thread he thought he had a week.  That is just clueless.

However I also subscribe to "pay peanuts and get monkeys" and think the salary should be doubled so we get people with abity standing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my sign is the one by Crosby Co-Op I'll grab it tomorrow. I thought I'd got them all down at the weekend but Keiran said that was still there. My Election Agent lives nearby and was going to remove it, so I suspect I'll have to dismiss him now from his voluntary job with extreme prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, P.K. said:

The actual truth is that your BLM mates tried to portray Mr Peters as a racist for their own ends without the slightest regard for the hurt and damage it could, and has, caused to his reputation.

Now THAT'S what I call ignorant.

And by the way I have fought against prejudice, misinformation and brutal ignorance and at times it got very nasty. I'm sure I did a lot more rather than try to trash some innocent's standing and then follow it up with a little walk ending in some pointless symbolism.

This is totally subjective. If you are of the opinion that SP is racist then in my view the fault lies with SP not those commenting on the matter and any hurt and damage done is the responsibility of SP having such views and, again, not the party reporting. If you believe that SP is racist then they have not tried to "trash come innocent's standing" as if he has those views then by definition he is not innocent.

If you believe that SP does not hold racist views then the opinion you express would be appropriate.

One definition for being racist "is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group" and my view is that from what I have heard SP say and also from what I have read then, in my opinion, reaching the opinion that SP is racist is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach. You obviously have a different opinion.

I would also disagree with your comment about the "little walk ending in some pointless symbolism". To be the taking the knee, marching and demonstrating is a demonstration that many reasonable folk are trying to send a message out to those that still have racist views, and I would include you in that based on your posts, that these views are not acceptable. Whilst it may not stop people having those views it might at least make them think twice before stating publicly and encouraging others to follow. It is why I support the taking of the knee prior to premier league games etc, although for a whilst I was wondering if the gesture has gone stale and was time to stop, as if the majority of public demonstrate their support against racism then those who might want to express such views at or around grounds might think twice.

I have to admit that is I was writing this 40 or 50 years ago I am pretty sure that I would have reached a different conclusion as what was deemed acceptable then would, in many cases, no longer be seen as acceptable. e.g. the blackface minstrel tradition was still mainstream when I was a child with the Black and White Minstrel show or collectables with tokens from, I think, Robertson's jam. 

I don't view SP as being overtly racist but simply that from his outmoded views he demonstrates a level of convert racism which effectively enables him to practice "plausible deniability".  I think that many in the older generations also only really recognise overt racism or sexism.

I don't expect SP's or others with similar views to change as they are children of their times and have not moved with the times nor do they want to. You can see that with SP with his occasional complaints about not wanting or needed to be educated by others. Many of us enjoy being continually politely educated through life, for one thing it helps me understand my kids. I would not try and argue or discuss the matter with SP as I appreciate that he would be as receptive as my kids are when I try and help them with their school work. The shutters would just come down. As most we can hope that is uncomfortable for them to express such views publicly so that future generations don't copy and think such view remain acceptable.

I often listen to old comedies on the radio and pre broadcast they announce that the contents of the programs reflects the attitude of the times. Now we are living in 2021 I would prefer that we stop trying to argue that attitudes in respect of racism, sexism etc that were prevalent and acceptable 50, 60 or 70 years ago remain so today. I look back at my behaviour 50 years ago and I accept that if looked at in the current light they might not stand up to scrutiny. I doubt if wandering hands in the cinema wondering what "base" you might get to with a girl are still viewed as acceptable but certainly now if a girl told you to stop you would rather than merely treat it as a signal to give it a rest for 5 minutes before trying again.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

If my sign is the one by Crosby Co-Op I'll grab it tomorrow. I thought I'd got them all down at the weekend but Keiran said that was still there. My Election Agent lives nearby and was going to remove it, so I suspect I'll have to dismiss him now from his voluntary job with extreme prejudice.

Nope it is on Glen Vine Road. Unlike Ramseyboi all I expect is that candidates do their best endeavours to remove reasonably quickly and appreciate that it must be easy to miss the odd one, especially if you put the number out that David Fowler did. I have to admit I am at a loss why along parts of the main road into Douglas he had quite so many as I doubt that many voters went on seeing the 6th one, "You know what, having passed 5 signs in the last 200 yards and not thought about voting for David Fowler, now I have seen the 6th I will" Possibly he presumed we had the memory of a goldfish and would forget if not reminded every 10 seconds. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2021 at 7:01 PM, Barlow said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Ramseyboi said:

Then they are both in breach of the regulations regards signage - Not a good look really when it is something so simple

 

Which one did I miss? Some actual info would be much more use than your vague whinging? As stu points out, I managed to message him amicably with details about where his was, out of courtesy and to seem like I actually wanted to actually ensure the sign was removed... 

 

Edited by Keiran Hannifin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lost Login said:

This is totally subjective. If you are of the opinion that SP is racist then in my view the fault lies with SP not those commenting on the matter and any hurt and damage done is the responsibility of SP having such views and, again, not the party reporting. If you believe that SP is racist then they have not tried to "trash come innocent's standing" as if he has those views then by definition he is not innocent.

If you believe that SP does not hold racist views then the opinion you express would be appropriate.

One definition for being racist "is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group" and my view is that from what I have heard SP say and also from what I have read then, in my opinion, reaching the opinion that SP is racist is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach. You obviously have a different opinion.

I would also disagree with your comment about the "little walk ending in some pointless symbolism". To be the taking the knee, marching and demonstrating is a demonstration that many reasonable folk are trying to send a message out to those that still have racist views, and I would include you in that based on your posts, that these views are not acceptable. Whilst it may not stop people having those views it might at least make them think twice before stating publicly and encouraging others to follow. It is why I support the taking of the knee prior to premier league games etc, although for a whilst I was wondering if the gesture has gone stale and was time to stop, as if the majority of public demonstrate their support against racism then those who might want to express such views at or around grounds might think twice.

I have to admit that is I was writing this 40 or 50 years ago I am pretty sure that I would have reached a different conclusion as what was deemed acceptable then would, in many cases, no longer be seen as acceptable. e.g. the blackface minstrel tradition was still mainstream when I was a child with the Black and White Minstrel show or collectables with tokens from, I think, Robertson's jam. 

I don't view SP as being overtly racist but simply that from his outmoded views he demonstrates a level of convert racism which effectively enables him to practice "plausible deniability".  I think that many in the older generations also only really recognise overt racism or sexism.

I don't expect SP's or others with similar views to change as they are children of their times and have not moved with the times nor do they want to. You can see that with SP with his occasional complaints about not wanting or needed to be educated by others. Many of us enjoy being continually politely educated through life, for one thing it helps me understand my kids. I would not try and argue or discuss the matter with SP as I appreciate that he would be as receptive as my kids are when I try and help them with their school work. The shutters would just come down. As most we can hope that is uncomfortable for them to express such views publicly so that future generations don't copy and think such view remain acceptable.

I often listen to old comedies on the radio and pre broadcast they announce that the contents of the programs reflects the attitude of the times. Now we are living in 2021 I would prefer that we stop trying to argue that attitudes in respect of racism, sexism etc that were prevalent and acceptable 50, 60 or 70 years ago remain so today. I look back at my behaviour 50 years ago and I accept that if looked at in the current light they might not stand up to scrutiny. I doubt if wandering hands in the cinema wondering what "base" you might get to with a girl are still viewed as acceptable but certainly now if a girl told you to stop you would rather than merely treat it as a signal to give it a rest for 5 minutes before trying again.       

Tldr. I'm presuming vague overwaffle

  • Like 1
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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