Jump to content

IOM COURTS SENTENCING


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, monasqueen said:

The "Doncaster 5" had their H&S "minder" with them. He admitted to "dropping his guard". He is as guilty as they are, because he should have been looking after them. Some story, thinking they were only getting out of their van for a smoke.

They, including him, always intended to go to the shop, as it was in the opposite direction to their hotel when they came off the boat.

That's appalling if it's true and it's also appalling that it hasn't been this aspect of it didn't come out in Court - or at least if it did it wasn't reported.  It would have been the clear responsibility of the 'minder' to make sure they didn't break the rules and if they refused the police should have been rung.

It's the classic DoI mindset - that they are above the law and if anyone has to bear the consequences of law-breaking it won't be them.  And everyone else in government seems happy to go along with it.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 888
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Twenty years ago when the schools became devolved and management of the school budgets lay with the head teachers is when things began to change. The money was and is in exam enrolment.  When the

That was a big McSteak.

Sigh. Why is it that we have to wait for a major incident (jail, controversy on the world wide stage) before someone realises that perhaps expecting workers to come from the U.K. to a different j

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's appalling if it's true and it's also appalling that it hasn't been this aspect of it didn't come out in Court - or at least if it did it wasn't reported.  It would have been the clear responsibility of the 'minder' to make sure they didn't break the rules and if they refused the police should have been rung.

It's the classic DoI mindset - that they are above the law and if anyone has to bear the consequences of law-breaking it won't be them.  And everyone else in government seems happy to go along with it.

Jesus wept - nothing to do with DoI mindset.

Some people brought over who blatantly knew the rules chose to ignore them.

Fuck all to do with DoI.  :whatever:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Jesus wept - nothing to do with DoI mindset.

Some people brought over who blatantly knew the rules chose to ignore them.

Fuck all to do with DoI.  :whatever:

thanks Tim...

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, piebaps said:

Issuing each worker with a certificate which plainly sets out their conditions seems sufficient.

You can view them on the FOI site. The request was dated 23.06.20 and called Entry Exemption Certificates.

That’s just an ass covering exercise though. Rely on the fact that someone signed a form and we’ve got a copy of it rather than try to educate them on what will happen if you break the law. How many times do people sign a form and go “yeah yeah” that’s fine when they haven’t read it or understood the consequence of it. It’s a typical government cop out IMHO. You signed a form so we”re covered. But it’s done little to stop these people actually going out and potentially spreading it so form or not it’s fairly pointless. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, monasqueen said:

It gets even worse. The ITV news item says they all went to McDonalds after visiting Tesco.

A Yorkshire news item confirms that they were eating in McDonalds.

But I haven’t seen the contact tracing team shut down either McDonald's or Tesco have you? The only place shut currently down or in measures is the prison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

That’s just an ass covering exercise though. Rely on the fact that someone signed a form and we’ve got a copy of it rather than try to educate them on what will happen if you break the law. How many times do people sign a form and go “yeah yeah” that’s fine when they haven’t read it or understood the consequence of it. It’s a typical government cop out IMHO. You signed a form so we”re covered. But it’s done little to stop these people actually going out and potentially spreading it so form or not it’s fairly pointless. 

They were given the relevant rules. It's not difficult.  They just wilfully disobeyed them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

They were given the relevant rules. It's not difficult.  They just wilfully disobeyed them.

As I said that’s a total cop out IMHO.

How many times do people sign up to things they have no understanding of? For instance I wonder how many sex offenders realize that they aren’t allowed to apply for a Facebook account? 

https://www.thrillist.com/tech/nation/terms-and-conditions-youve-mindlessly-agreed-to-fine-print-in-end-user-license-agreements

I’m glad we now accept that more effort needs to be made to get people to understand what they’ve signed up to. Surely that’s more effective than blaming them for signing a form after the event? 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's appalling if it's true and it's also appalling that it hasn't been this aspect of it didn't come out in Court - or at least if it did it wasn't reported.  It would have been the clear responsibility of the 'minder' to make sure they didn't break the rules and if they refused the police should have been rung.

It's the classic DoI mindset - that they are above the law and if anyone has to bear the consequences of law-breaking it won't be them.  And everyone else in government seems happy to go along with it.

You haven't been reading, Rog!:P

The H&S guy was their own who came over with them, told them not to go in to Tesco, but they ignored him, so he says. 

I am interested in who signed the forms.  According to Piebaps they are on the FOI site, but I can't find them.  Now, if they were signed by their employer  'for them'  that raises quite a few questions.  If they signed them themselves, that raises other questions about their understanding of what they were signing up to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

 You signed a form so we”re covered. But it’s done little to stop these people actually going out and potentially spreading it so form or not it’s fairly pointless. 

 

2 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

They were given the relevant rules. It's not difficult.  They just wilfully disobeyed them.

Hey, I got an idea, how about putting a reet big sign where they pick up their baggage too.

And them out side, bring the big red LED sign from the Mount Murray and have it flashing stuff about the rules. Or that yellow lights at each end of the TT Course about the mountain being one way or foggy and stuff.

Then get the Red Arrers to write the notices in the sky in red, white and blue smoke, over Douglas Bay. The rest of us can eat hamburgers and beer in plastic glasses and pretend it's TT.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

They were given the relevant rules. It's not difficult.  They just wilfully disobeyed them.

Fat lot of good the government waving their signed form about when the virus is spreading through the community for the sake of an announcement on the boat explaining the penalty properly! A typical civil servants way of dealing with things, gutless and whimpering, hiding behind others and bits of paper! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one in charge drives the van to Tesco...why ?   He is the one to blame totally.   The two 18 year olds went inside to get some cheap booze what teenager wouldn’t after being driven to the supermarket by their boss.   The driver is lying through his teeth regarding them getting out for a fag he said on MR that he knew they were in trouble when the boys came back to van and said they had been challenged.  How easy is it to get the exemption certificates?   Why would two apprentices be regarded as key workers ? There are failings on all sides.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree totally HS, apart from the apprentices.  The argument may be that the skilled workers needed a couple of runners, and if they were contracted to do the job, they would want complete control over it.  Their insurance may also have required them to provide all staff so if there is a cock up, it is easier to establish fault.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...