John Wright

No, I very carefully don’t say that.

I’m just setting out one of the matters that may be taken into account. If the question of hearsay and admissibility had been dealt with at the right time the trial may not have gone ahead, saving, say, £20,000 of those £29,000.

Not yet. You’re jumping the gun. They have indicated their costs were £29,000, and that they will apply for costs. DHB has said she’ll set dates to hear and determine that application. They may not be awarded costs ( unlikely ), it may not be £29,000, possibly much less ( possibly ), especially if the defence contributed to the time taken by admitting inadmissible documents.

Having read the judgment it’s fairly clear prosecution wasn’t capricious or personally motivated or a vendetta. Its also fairly clear that there was a prima facie case and that bringing it was in the public interest. Its not correct to say that the Summary Courts do not deal with complex issues, both of fact and law. There are however rules about raising them early and the court setting directions as to how they are dealt with. Seems both sides didn’t cover themselves in glory, not just the AG’s. First, most of the evidence was documentary or computer records and wasn’t admissible, it was hearsay. Not only did the AG’s apparently not recognise this, but having served a mountain of non admissible paperwork, the defence accepted it rather than raising objection. It was only the DHB who recognised this. That explains why her judgment took so long ( I note there were criticisms about the time she took posted here ) there was a complex legal matrix to be applied to voluminous paper. Second, if the complex legal situation had been notified to the court there would have been a timetable for its lodging with the court in advance, with opportunity for both sides to then comment on relevance. As it was the complex legal authorities were given to the court just before the hearing, and hardly referred to. But the DHB had to read all of it without either side having indicated what was relevant, or not.

Judgment. https://www.judgments.im/content/J2425.htm

Not really. Nurses are at their station at NHS Nobles. They can’t see their patients. They do rounds and answer call bells. No different at all. All new hospitals provide single en-suite rooms as standard. Not dormitory wards of 24-30, or side wards of 4-6. The staffing to patient ratio may be higher, privately. the problem I’ve seen with Noble’s private treatment has been that it’s not joined up. If, for instance, I wanted Wrighty ( this is theoretical, I’m not sure he does private - he’ll set me right ) to operate privately on my ankle there’s no price list. I’ll get a bill from him, another for the anaesthetist and theatre time and staff, imaging, bloods and other tests, and then the room. I had a series of consults and minor treatments in orthodontics a few years ago. Promptly got a bill from the consultant, who only did private after NHS clinic hours, three months later a bill from the hospital for imaging, and 9 months later room use charges for 3 out of the 5 consultations. It could, it should, make money.

Because of the process established by Art 50, because of what we are signed up to, and will lose at 23.00 on 29 March 2019, with nothing in place, apart perhaps from a trade deal with the EU, not with the other 60+ countries we currently have trade ( and other deals ) with through the EU, and the 20+ in the pipeline. We start with nothing. We throw away 45 years of very beneficial development and put nothing in its place. This explains it in detail. https://www.docdroid.net/file/download/m3YvOS5/brexit-truth-revised.pdf We do know, and those who say we don’t are misguided, but less misguided than the charlatans like Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, etc, who promise an undeliverable land of milk and honey. And no, the EU hasn’t been obstructive. UK wants out. Art 50, which UK drafted, says how that happens. it’s up to UK to have worked out what it wanted, and presented a coherent plan. It hasn’t, it won’t, it can’t. Mainly because the Tory party is split, May is just a fall girl.

No, you have to leave the club first before you can try and set up new clubs, and associations with other clubs ( with which you previously had associations through the club you were already in ). It actually shows how good the EU is at negotiating and how piss poor the UK is. It also shows how well the over riding purpose of the EU has worked, with the integration of economies, supply lines, production, capital, etc, that leaving is such a problem. There is a future outside the EU, but compared to the future inside the EU it’s much bleaker, weaker economy, less opportunity for education and mobility, etc.

Specifically what of everything that we couldn’t do before?

Of what, though?

No. Cronk Grainagh was what they renamed Mannin Infirmary, which itself was the renamed work house. It was an old people’s home and was demolished years ago. The MHU was Grainagh Court, but that has been decommissioned. The new MHU is MNnanan Court.

But I thought one or your claimed USP for Brexit was we could declare zero tariffs on food imports ( just like there are on imports from the EU now) so there’d be lots of cheap food? Explain how that’s good for UK farmers?

Spoilt by some basic errors and a real spelling gaffe 5 lines from end

They both derive from the same Latin root. Jail was predominantly American English when I was at school, Gaol was British Manx. The full name of the Court is General Gaol Delivery. And that’s just what it’s function was. Arrested, locked up, had to be produced ( delivered ) to the next Court. Same function as the Assizes and Quarter Sessions in England. · From Middle English gayole, Middle English gajol, gaylle, gaille, gayle, gaile, via Old French gaiole, gayolle, gaole, from Medieval Latin gabiola, for Vulgar Latin *caveola, a diminutive of Latin cavea (“cavity, coop, cage”).

The BBC subcontracts enforcement - mainly to Capita. So they aren’t from the BBC. They have no right of entry. You don’t have to tell them anything. They may write to you. If they do you can write back saying you will charge £100 for answering the next letter, reading it, etc and £200 for any subsequent one, and that sending further letters will constitute acceptance, and that the contract is governed by Manx Law and Manx Courts.. If they write back then issue invoices and sue. It’s been done in English Small Claims and BBC lost.