IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Gladys 7,269]

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?

[Albert Tatlock 11,517]

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 Tuesday at 08:39 PM by Albert Tatlock

[Gladys 7,269]

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. 

[CowMan 37]

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. 

[Gladys 7,269]

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. 

[CowMan 37]

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? 

[Albert Tatlock 11,517]

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.

[Gladys 7,269]

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 Tuesday at 09:01 PM by Gladys

[quilp 10,825]

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. 

[Roger Mexico 9,740]

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.

[Albert Tatlock 11,517]

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?

[quilp 10,825]

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. 

[Gladys 7,269]

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.

[Gladys 7,269]

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. 

[CowMan 37]

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.