roadwatcher Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 ‘A fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that the comments and determinations actually contained in my judgments do not cross the line or threshold that has to be crossed to justify the step of recusal.’ Well Deemster Doyle would say that, wouldn't he! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Some of the things I read on here show a very 'interesting' side to certain people. I suppose that's the price of free speech though. All in all it's best out in the open. I'd prefer that, no matter how nasty a poster appears to be rather than a moderator deciding what we should read. Whilst some offensive things do occasionally appear, the moderation level on MF is quite refreshing. The commonest offensive item is the foul language that gets posted up either to shock or because the poster lacks a reasonable enough vocabulary to express themselves or more often than not - both! As to an 'interesting' side to people the Hare checklist is the way to go. Although it can have serious consequences - like commitment to Broadmoor for an indefinite period. It consists of twenty questions to define if you are a psychopath that get marked either 0 - never displays this characteristic, 1 - sometimes displays this characteristic, 2 - always displays this characteristic. A score of around 30 means you are probably psychopathic and should not be allowed near sharp instruments - like an axe! The questions: Item 1 Glibness/superficial charm Item 2 Grandiose sense of self-worth Item 3 Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Item 4 Pathological lying Item 5 Cunning/manipulative Item 6 Lack of remorse or guilt Item 7 Shallow affect Item 8 Callous/lack of empathy Item 9 Parasitic lifestyle Item 10 Poor behavioural controls Item 11 Promiscuous sexual behaviour Item 12 Early behaviour problems Item 13 Lack of realistic long-term goals Item 14 Impulsivity Item 15 Irresponsibility Item 16 Failure to accept responsibility for own actions Item 17 Many short-term marital relationships Item 18 Juvenile delinquency Item 19 Revocation of conditional release Item 20 Criminal versatility Everyone has certain characteristics on the list i.e. "Item 2 Grandiose sense of self-worth" is usually a person with the letters MBA after their name that you can watch on "The Apprentice" every week - but that doesn't make them a psychopath. A "normal" person will usually score 5 or 6. Enjoy your psychopath spotting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Item 11 Promiscuous sexual behaviour I gave up when I got to this question as I was unsure whether to give myself 2 marks for desperatly wanting to be in the position to have the opportunity carry out this sort of behaviour on a lavish scale or no marks on account of being to old and ugly to attract any other party to join in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Item 11 Promiscuous sexual behaviour I gave up when I got to this question as I was unsure whether to give myself 2 marks for desperatly wanting to be in the position to have the opportunity carry out this sort of behaviour on a lavish scale or no marks on account of being to old and ugly to attract any other party to join in You can very proudly mark yourself with a full and very well deserved 2 marks! Because there's no mention that any other party needs to be even remotely involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 PROWL have caused this legal bill. The government didn't have a dog in this fight until they got involved. PROWL have cost ME money via my taxes. They are not "concerned citizens", but jumped up wankers who want others to pay for the battles they want to be fought. I hope Clarkson sets bear traps for them Have your taxes gone up to pay for this case then? No thought not. Everyone is paying the same taxes we did before. But in your case its blatantly obvious we are paying for your taxes to be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Aye Spanna but that doesn't mean to say the lawyers are working for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaboy Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Aye Spanna but that doesn't mean to say the lawyers are working for nothing. I think based on the contracted nature of this case, entirely due to the Clarkson's being determined to explore every possible procedure to get the PROWs decision overturned, that there will be a strong possibility of the DoI being awarded costs. In fact their lawyer warned that they would be looking for this when the opposition presented the recusal proposal so late in the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I have a friend who is a twitcher and spends occasional weekends with his flask, sandwiches, and the odd bird magazine, in a hide on Langness foreshore looking to catch a glimpse of the lesser spotted Britannicus Clarksonicus. He describes the bird as having long legs, a large beak, rich plumage, an aggressive and territorial manner similar to the robin, a puffed out chest, and a sulky manner. In appearance it is easily mistaken for the great tit. Something of a hybrid species its song is similar to the sound of a stormy petrel while its mating habits are closest to the cuckoo. It is seldom faithful to one partner and will sometimes foul its nest and fly off with other birds if it's bored or moody. It will nest typically on inaccessible stony outcrops, although it migrates frequently to the English countryside and can sometimes be seen in warmer climes. It will often be spotted in the company of the little-hammond and the maybird. Well worth looking out for if you're into birds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I met Mr C while walking my dogs on his land and, strictly, contrary to the notice on the gate a couple of years ago, (hasten to add no fear of sheep worrying as it was on the beach side). I was worried that he might blast off at me, so I looked him in the eye and apologised, explaining that we would only be following the shoreline. Once he had disengaged himself from his iPod, we exchanged a few pleasantries, he went on his way and I on mine; no threats, no get orf my land and tether them beasts. He actually, really wanted to be left alone. I was not planning to go past the cottages, I just wanted to walk the dogs over the spit of land that looks onto Castletown. He on the other hand, wanted to be able to walk on his land and, at that time, seemed reasonably OK for others to do the same providing they allowed him to quietly enjoy his house. What this battle seems to have done, as legal wrangles will inevitably do, is polarise and entrench. Even sadder is the loss of a free ambassador, particularly in these beleagured times. He used to big up the IOM in a very flattering way, gave it loads of positive exposure (mainly focussing on the peace of the place) and is repaid by mealy-mouthed and small-minded hostility over what is essentially a minor diversion. Meanwhile, I haven't seen much of a fuss about a complete (physical) closure of the footpath from Middle Farm to the EFW plant. It is clearly on the walking map as a route but when I tried the route a couple of years ago the path was blocked with orange mesh; no diversion, just blocked. But I guess that is OK as it will be a local who done it rather than one of them jumped up, fancy comeovers with more money than sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterflies Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 ^yawn. Change the record will ya? It's boring. This isn't just about one path, there will be lots of rights of way established over Langness from this enquiry. Who cares whether he's a comeover, it's what he's done in closing a well established path that he was told was there where he bought it. Although it does make it funnier that he's a complete, rambler hating knobhead why didn't you complain yourself about the path of which you speak? I'm not aware of it, but I do know that there are always fights with locals about paths, landowners are always trying to close them, put signs up, put bulls in the field with a path through it etc etc. And people do fight this behaviour, local or otherwise. An ambassador? So he should be treated specially? I don't want that oversized schoolboy associated at all with this Island if I'm honest, and when he goes it will be good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Meanwhile, I haven't seen much of a fuss about a complete (physical) closure of the footpath from Middle Farm to the EFW plant. It is clearly on the walking map as a route but when I tried the route a couple of years ago the path was blocked with orange mesh; no diversion, just blocked. .. assuming still blocked then have you raised this with dept (was transport - not sure of this week's name) or with the Footpath conservation group who have a good relationship with dept - usually any unauthorised blockage is resolved quite quickly without any need for lawyers to get involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 ^yawn. Change the record will ya? It's boring. This isn't just about one path, there will be lots of rights of way established over Langness from this enquiry. Who cares whether he's a comeover, it's what he's done in closing a well established path that he was told was there where he bought it. Although it does make it funnier that he's a complete, rambler hating knobhead why didn't you complain yourself about the path of which you speak? I'm not aware of it, but I do know that there are always fights with locals about paths, landowners are always trying to close them, put signs up, put bulls in the field with a path through it etc etc. And people do fight this behaviour, local or otherwise. An ambassador? So he should be treated specially? I don't want that oversized schoolboy associated at all with this Island if I'm honest, and when he goes it will be good riddance. This post starts off reasonably but so quickly falls to nasty rhetoric. You're hardly doing your cause much good by being so unobjective. And offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 yawn. Change the record will ya? It's boring Well go and read something else then... I don't want that oversized schoolboy associated at all with this Island if I'm honest, and when he goes it will be good riddance That says a lot more about you than him. And shouldn't that be IF he goes? It's posts like this that makes me wonder what the real general objective of this action has been. Would you have said the same if he had been manx? Y'know 'get lost' and good riddance? Then you say who cares if he's a comeover! It just doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 His land, he bought it! It's not him costing us money is it??? He has been quite fair over the matter... Get used to it! I can think of much worse on which funds could be wasted... Grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 You may have had point at one time, but it is him costing us money, now. He's appealing about a decision that has been made. Prowl couldn't give it up and get used to it if they wanted to, they're no longer a party to the dispute. The only one, at this point in time, who can back down is Clarkson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.