Rhumsaa

was trying to find the legislation as I think I found it last year before the Douglas by-election but I think (from memory so happy to be corrected) that if you're a media organisation you have to give equal opportunity to all candidates. So if Ged starts interviewing one he will effectively have to offer to give everyone equal opportunity. Could be a grey area on podcasts or whatever it is he is doing

I'm not going to lie, I do not have it in me to go through the whole of this post.

Will Ged Power fall foul of the legislation by interviewing candidates?

hoping / expecting

who is expecting no DA in CoMin?

interesting logic progression

she would have had to have accepted it and I believe she has said multiple times she isn't interested in the financial side just wants to assist so I assume she's accepted in order to help the IOM

Sheltered Housing is a DOI area and completely different to a Residential Care Home like the Corrin Memorial Home

I'm not clicking on a link to read something you could have written here

Also she's been elected as an MLC not a constituency rep so whilst she might have naturally been doing more around her local area if an MLC started treading on an MHK's area it would defeat the purpose of having an MLC?

"sort out"

1. Another ridiculous name you've created that is surely more effort than its worth 2. I don't think any legislation or Henderson's question is designed to mean you commit an offence when at a traffic light

"The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Henderson, to ask the Chief Minister (Minister for the Cabinet Office) – What plans he has to take powers to prohibit drivers of vehicles from leaving the engines running when there is no good reason to do so[...]" Honestly I stopped reading at this point....

The UK media is definitely getting behind the fear of the Indian variant Plenty of bodies and organisations warning about its effect and officials in Wales advising people to not travel even if rules allow it Is the tease worse than the denial?

For that see;

I'm 50/50 on this I agree that there shouldn't be a complete shield where CS can act without any repercussions and just throw out the MHK of the day to be torn apart for the various failings However, in practicality what will happen is the communication within the CS will cease to be in email, minutes will stop being taken for meetings, all references to names will be removed to avoid being caught under SAR or FOI requests and these sort of things will become even more cloak and dagger. Also in the defence of MHK's and CS, there are decisions and discussions that need to be had in a frank and open manner and if they're working from a position of fear that their correspondence will be at a later date disseminated and attacked without context by third parties then this will not occur. This is a case in point. I have absolutely no idea what the correspondence this chap wrote, and yet there are now multiple people on here who have his motive/actions/failure already determined because of a couple of tweets by someone currently in a public spat with the Government.

As a SAR is different from an FOI Request I wonder where the public naming of a 3rd party stands? Although the term "narrative" is not necessarily a negative statement it could be construed as such;

115?

maybe it's a Manx thing? I caught myself wiith the ridiculousness of my own mind as I simultaneously have written on here that he's a shoe in to be re-elected and in with a shout of being CM and also thought "oh that's a bit arrogant to assume you're getting back in"

Yeah it was yesterday I saw the tweets so I assume it was yesterday

I note that Dr G was scathing on Twitter regarding Ashford's evidence to PAC, I've not listened myself - anyone here able to give a summary?

It'd be a different matter if RTC had a tent emporium I suspect

I don't know if this is true but is there a risk of a conflict of interest (for either side) if they maintain their professional qualifications throughout?

This won't meet the Sleepy Joe standards of information but I've seen a manifesto from the Green Party leader Andrew Langan-Newton to say he's standing in Rushen

I mean HQ has ensured that the only people that meet his criteria are people he chose..... It's also not a criteria that holds any weight at all other than as his opinion The gender is irrelevant