crumlin Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 How do most of you feel about Censorship, I for one dont agree with most of it but the Government like to use it in many ways. If Taxpayers money is involved the sums of money involved should not be sensored or protected under the Data Protection Act. When crime is involved the public should have the right to know, regardless of how minor it is, As a father of kids I should have the right to know if BEASTS live in the same area as my family.
Slim Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 I think its a very fine line between censorship and protection of privacy. It's often confused, and it's often even harder to judge which is right. In the case of government making payments public, well, where do you stop? Should everone receiving benefit have those details on public record? I know what you mean, it does often seem unfair, especially with business grants, I'm just not sure where you'd draw the line.
Ripsaw Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Information relating to certain situations should definately be available "upon request" subject to conditions. As a father of kids I should have the right to know if BEASTS live in the same area as my family.As a parent I know that "beasts" exist, I'd rather know that placing faith in the hands of the responsible people is justified. I don't want to doubt their abilities. Until, (or unless) such a time that medical/chemical/physical methods are introduced to curb their behavior then as a parent I would be a hypocritic to say I don't want one living near me, but it's ok for him to live in another village near another family. Seeing as it is claimed to be a genetic disorder, maybe we should start screening all babies for known genetic deficiencies and "sort them out" at birth, then we wouldn't have to worry about them offending later in life, they could even be permanently tagged (just in case you realise). The same laws of privacy apply to us plebs as to the high and mighty, maybe we simply have less to hide? By the way, what's your real name, address and salary? I assume these should be broadcast publicly, or at least should be available to anyone who wants to know? If Taxpayers money is involved the sums of money involved should not be sensored or protected under the Data Protection Act.When crime is involved the public should have the right to know, regardless of how minor it is, Crimes should be reported in the public domain... Just ask the 3 Leicester players recently prisoned in Spain. Must have been guilty... What do you mean they were no near the alledged incident? Never mind, what's six days in a foreign prison to innocent men, not as if they received death threats inside, or their personal life suffered in any way, eh? Maybe we should specify crimes that have been reported and the accused have been found guilty in a Court of Law? Unless good reasons (previously defined in law) exist, the hearings *are* reported. Tax Payers money should be accountable and information publicly available. Not to the extent of a regular column in the paper, or in special broadcasts on the radio, but in some sort of Registry, one where if you declare an interest, you can find out who is receiving your money and for what purpose. In the recent high publicity case (the one in which no breaking of any laws has yet been proven) the only thing proven so far is a clerical error. As far as I know, the case is being examined to the extent of available means. Any better suggestions are always welcome though as long as they apply to the whole population. I've been vocal (online and "down the pub") about various aspects of the case, but I'm not ready to start building a pyre (not just yet anyway).
joeyconcrete Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Re: Business grants and tax 'schemes' (scheming?) It annoys me how there seems to be sooo many grants available, but none seem immediately accessible to joe public. Its only when something goes pear-shaped do these grants come to the surface.. I think if any company/individual receives a grant from the government, this should be publicly available. If they don't want it in the public domain, tough - I mean, why wouldn't they want others to know? When it comes to government employees (+family) receiving grants, they just shouldn't. The same way Walkers Crisps staff/family can't enter any crisp packet competitions... Nearly all companies offering promotions do this - I think its because if someone 'did' win, people would say its rigged! It may be unfair in some instances, but - they should be fully aware of this when they joined the government. The government does need to be more open when it comes to grants, tax schemes and other various seemingly under-hand financial doings. When they are created - their terms should be made available to the public. When grants are issued, the details should be made available, in addition to the grounds on which they were issued. There's various examples, E-Habitant (haha), Tourism grants, Mount Murray tax riggings. There's other things like this DTI Internet scheme, where cash is issued when MT/Domi/etc connect up a business/customer. Afterall, all these things are essentially taxPayers money. Transparency is the key - with a semi-open government it (should) lead to less rumours and speculation. Until they take steps towards this - the rumours and conspiracy theories will remain.
geo Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Simple solution is to stop all grants. If you want something you have to work to earn money to get it like I do.
Bill Posters Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Seeing as it is claimed to be a genetic disorder, maybe we should start screening all babies for known genetic deficiencies and "sort them out" at birth, then we wouldn't have to worry about them offending later in life I seem to remember that Adolf someone-or-other had a similar idea
Declan Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 I don't think Ripsaw was actually suggesting that, Bill.
Bill Posters Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 I don't think Ripsaw was actually suggesting that OK, possibly not a direct analogy, but I do have concerns about where 'selective breeding' could lead us.
Grumble Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 When it comes to government employees (+family) receiving grants, they just shouldn't. The same way Walkers Crisps staff/family can't enter any crisp packet competitions... Nearly all companies offering promotions do this - I think its because if someone 'did' win, people would say its rigged! Never thought of it like that before - makes perfect sense though! As to 'joe public' not getting grants - well, that's their bloody fault for not looking into what's available innit? If I had a business (especially a start-up) I know I'd be looking for whatever assistance I was eligible for. NOT because I'm a scrounger, but because a solid, growing business should repay any grants many times over in taxes.
joeyconcrete Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Likewise, I'd probably look for grants too - however, it appears that a lot of these grants/schemes seem to be created on the fly for a given project/individual. The grant application/papers seem to go through with little or no signs of a trail, and no one who can take responsibility in case of 'issues'.. Again, if these schemes were solid - they'd be no speculation just hard facts and reasoning. Its all well and good that the government 'now' recognizes there's issues with these processes, anyone with some common-sense (never mind gov ministers) would expect this before making the grant/scheme available. I'd compare it to a bank loan application, there's specific clauses and requirements, strict paper work and its well documented. While if the government were a bank, the cashier would issue you the loan because your mate upstairs said it would be ok. When your mate is asked, he said he never realised that he couldn't give you that much. When they run checks, they find clerical errors (or dumb staff). So no individual gets the blame. Its a complete sham. In this instance, the loan recipient is a Team Leader in said bank. bah
Ripsaw Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Thanks Declan and Observer I do have concerns about where 'selective breeding' could lead us Don't worry Bill, there is no way that I would advocate genetic screening for the example I gave above. In the case of the "Beasts", for a person to be so labelled is aknowledge that the person in question has commited an offence. Research has linked the condition to genetic deficiancies. As inviting as lynch mobs are to some and all that such a society would entail, I'd rather not think about living in such a society. I'm not going to start going on about how they deserve one method of treatment over another, I admit that I don't have a clue about the condition and I pray that I never have to hear about anyone going through the resulting trauma from the hand of such a peson. /back on thread... The thread was about Censorship. It exists and for ever reason for it's existence there are arguements against it. Information about Grant schemes are available online, maybe not all of them, but the backcatalogue is growing. Legislation has to pass 3 seperate readings in Keys as well as bobbling about in CoMin. The Tynwald Website is a valuable resourse for recent legislation, grants, etc.. There is also the Gov.im InfoCentre which lists public notices and media releases. Failing that, there is always Tynwald Library which is on the 3rd Floor of Government Buildings (above the Car Tax office) on Prospect Hill. I have found the guys in there very helpful when looking for a particular document. Information about the Government is the same as most things in life... It does exist but we don't tend to be aware unless we require specific details, then we wonder where to look for it. For most stuff there is Google, for IoM politics, try one of the three places mentioned above.
Ripsaw Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Forgot to say... Concrete, your analogy to competitions and promotions is a darn good point.
ans Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 You think you have it bad here? http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/03/00352...&tid=215&tid=99
geo Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 As the government is the second largest employer on the island, if you took concretes proposal to its extreme the only people applicable to grants would be the imigrants who arive on our shores. The grants should be open to all or not exist. it appears that a lot of these grants/schemes seem to be created on the fly for a given project/individual. That is just down right xxxx, you watch toooo much TV. Geo
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.