Jump to content
Spam messages. Please stop reporting messages from Orange 15, Ivsa and Pupyh. They’ve been banned. ×

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CowMan said:

The belief of many is that no fine or action will be issued because the issuing of a fine itself suggests wrongness. And if wrongness has happened the public will believe (rightly or wrongly) that the shareholder is ultimately responsible for it. In reality it may well be some poor SPC worker who gets his 14 days in the Jurby Hilton because, as other cases have shown us in the last year, ignorance of the islands quarantine rules has been held as no excuse in the eyes of the Court. I believe that previous legal defenses from isolation breakers that they didn’t understand the significance of the notices given to them fell on deaf ears. If that happens a strike may well ensue.

That hasn't happened yet, so why second guess the outcome?  Has anyone been arrested, cautioned or named?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2385

  • TheTeapot

    1358

  • Gladys

    1222

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, CowMan said:

If that happens a strike may well ensue.

I agree, a strike would be highly likely, if someone got jailed. Hence why I believe they have been quick to change it from individual to corporate responsibility. 

I see the likely outcome as revised memorandum of understanding, slap on wrist  and extra training for employee(s) involved, perhaps a training refresher for all. End of matter.

Edited by Albert Tatlock
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CowMan said:

Of course I’m just surprised that it isn’t to be a police investigation as all other cases involving the breaking of quarantine rules and government directions have been a matter for the police and the courts to deal with. As I said above I’m assuming that they dont want anyone ending up inside if that happens as without doubt there would likely be a strike amongst SPC workers concerned about future personal liabilities. But it seems to be that ignorance of the law has been no excuse for others up until now.

it will be interesting. 

It depends on whether there were valid directives,  who they were issued to and who was expected to observe them.  Like I say, people have already decided on the outcome but we don't know the facts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It depends on whether there were valid directives,  who they were issued to and who was expected to observe them.  Like I say, people have already decided on the outcome but we don't know the facts. 

Do you trust that government itself has the guaranteed impartiality to investigate whether it did or didn’t issue valid directives to the board of a company it also owns? I think most people would probably be happier if it was a formal police investigation. But then, as I said, it’s highly likely a worker might end up serving time like many of the other people who have failed to act as directed. Then there is a serious risk of a strike. As you say it’s speculation but there seem to be plenty speculating on this forum in many other ways. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CowMan said:

Do you trust that government itself has the guaranteed impartiality to investigate whether it did or didn’t issue valid directives to the board of a company it also owns? I think most people would probably be happier if it was a formal police investigation. But then, as I said, it’s highly likely a worker might end up serving time like many of the other people who have failed to act as directed. Then there is a serious risk of a strike. As you say it’s speculation but there seem to be plenty speculating on this forum in many other ways. 

Not sure the police would be able to determine the validity of any directives.  That would be an AG determination, I guess. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gladys said:

Not sure the police would be able to determine the validity of any directives. 

Between them and the courts they seem to have done ok so far in almost every other case of people breaking quarantine rules haven’t they? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Not sure the police would be able to determine the validity of any directives.  That would be an AG determination, I guess. 

And where does the Captain's responsibilities fit into all that also?

IMO it's all a potential legal Big Fella's nest. Covid regs/directives, maritime regs, H&S regs etc. etc.

Best resolved positively, amicably, responsibly...and just make the chances of it happening again minimal.

I suspect 95% of the population would agree to that...but expect some of those jailed already to complain.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CowMan said:

Between them and the courts they seem to have done ok so far in almost every other case of people breaking quarantine rules haven’t they? 

The police, so far, have operated on the basis that the directives were valid.  The police don't query whether the statute they are investigating someone under is valid, that is for the AG who actually prosecutes. 

Edited by Gladys
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quayle, in interview, pointed the finger directly at a UK worker who flagrantly broke the rules by not wearing a mask. It would therefore appear that if anyone was to be punished it would be the worker whose recklessness caused the outbreak in the first instance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CowMan said:

Of course I’m just surprised that it isn’t to be a police investigation as all other cases involving the breaking of quarantine rules and government directions have been a matter for the police and the courts to deal with. As I said above I’m assuming that they dont want anyone ending up inside if that happens as without doubt there would likely be a strike amongst SPC workers concerned about future personal liabilities. But it seems to be that ignorance of the law has been no excuse for others up until now.

But the difference here surely is that this is a directive issued to a particular company, rather than a law that applies generally and which is (at least in theory) able to be known to all.  The legal liability then applies only to the company - I can't see how it could be passed onto individual employees, especially as criminal charges.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, quilp said:

Quayle, in interview, pointed the finger directly at a UK worker who flagrantly broke the rules by not wearing a mask. It would therefore appear that if anyone was to be punished it would be the worker whose recklessness caused the outbreak in the first instance. 

And punished by whom and under which law? If he never set foot on the island?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know the answer to that Albert. I was just throwing it out there after hearing the headmaster's take on it. Surely, if the culprit/worker is employed by the Racket he is subject to their t&c's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the difference here surely is that this is a directive issued to a particular company, rather than a law that applies generally and which is (at least in theory) able to be known to all.  The legal liability then applies only to the company - I can't see how it could be passed onto individual employees, especially as criminal charges.

Again, it depends on the validity of the directive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, quilp said:

Don't know the answer to that Albert. I was just throwing it out there after hearing the headmaster's take on it. Surely, if the culprit/worker is employed by the Racket he is subject to their t&c's. 

Not the same as being subject to our criminal law. 

We don't know enough to really comment in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the difference here surely is that this is a directive issued to a particular company, rather than a law that applies generally and which is (at least in theory) able to be known to all.  The legal liability then applies only to the company - I can't see how it could be passed onto individual employees, especially as criminal charges.

Well as I read it, and I’m not a lawyer, is that the SPC workers are subject to the same self isolation laws as us and if they break them they break them. But separately their employer has been directed that certain parts of the quarantine laws do not automatically apply to seafarers working for the SPC during their period of employment so if they break the rules they can rely on the protection of the directive issued to their employer. But if that protection is defective my assumption (and it is only an assumption) is that they broke IOM quarantine rules as they have not actually been fully exempted from them. I’d be interested to hear your view. 

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...