Jump to content

IOM COURTS SENTENCING


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

There's a bit more explanation in the BBC piece.  She had actually arrived on the early morning boat and had had to ask the filling station to open up for her.  Apparently she thought that they would be more likely to do so if she told them she was just arrived from the land of Covid.

Makes us look even more like a bunch of inbred hicks to be honest. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 598
  • 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

The direction notice you get on return states that “in so far as you are reasonably able to achieve this, seclusion or segregation from the
populace at large “ - this is the spirit of the regs. It is to minimize contact. So, she had contact with one pump attendant. Then two bobbies,then two custody staff, an advocate, maybe a doctor, prisoner transfer staff, prison officers, prisoners....

Report for summons, reinforce the direction notice, send home, appear in court after isolation and get a big fine. Surely more proportionate and better management of the risk?

Also, the wording elsewhere is poor. Check this out; 

“It is recommended that wherever you are self-isolating (e.g. a hotel room, or alone or in an excluded manner from the rest of the household (who are not self-isolating) that other visitors must not attend the specified premises for the period of your self-isolation.”

so, is that guidance, (recommended), or a direction, (must)?  It needs to be clearer and more specific. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Makes us look even more like a bunch of inbred hicks to be honest. 

How so, the rules are there and she was punished for flouting them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Also, the wording elsewhere is poor. Check this out; 

“It is recommended that wherever you are self-isolating (e.g. a hotel room, or alone or in an excluded manner from the rest of the household (who are not self-isolating) that other visitors must not attend the specified premises for the period of your self-isolation.”

so, is that guidance, (recommended), or a direction, (must)?  It needs to be clearer and more specific. 

Is it making two points? 

  • It is recommended that those self-isolating  do so in a hotel room or a room separate from the rest of a household
  • There must not be any other visitors to the premises during the isolation period

But does "the premises" mean the room (which presumably must be en suite) or the whole building (which is hardly practical for a hotel)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Declan said:

It does feel like they’re sending people to prison for being stupid.

Bloody marvellous policy. More please.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The very fact you are questioning what is meant confirms that it is not clear!

Exactly the more you look at that sentence the less sense it makes - there's an unclosed set of brackets, two thats doing the same job...

"It is recommended that wherever you are self-isolating (e.g. a hotel room, or alone or in an excluded manner from the rest of the household (who are not self-isolating) that other visitors must not attend the specified premises for the period of your self-isolation."

They're locking people up and can't take the time to make the rules intelligible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 12:38 PM, thesultanofsheight said:

Agree Mr Lindon doesn't offend regularly .. but when he does best stay out of his way. He’s total been a prick all his life. 

Maybe didn't serve anything line enough time preciously.

This is the Isle of Man where reoffending rates are extremely low or the records have been lost behind the prison governors filing cabinet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

The direction notice you get on return states that “in so far as you are reasonably able to achieve this, seclusion or segregation from the
populace at large “ - this is the spirit of the regs. It is to minimize contact. So, she had contact with one pump attendant. Then two bobbies,then two custody staff, an advocate, maybe a doctor, prisoner transfer staff, prison officers, prisoners....

Report for summons, reinforce the direction notice, send home, appear in court after isolation and get a big fine. Surely more proportionate and better management of the risk?

Also, the wording elsewhere is poor. Check this out; 

“It is recommended that wherever you are self-isolating (e.g. a hotel room, or alone or in an excluded manner from the rest of the household (who are not self-isolating) that other visitors must not attend the specified premises for the period of your self-isolation.”

so, is that guidance, (recommended), or a direction, (must)?  It needs to be clearer and more specific. 

If your quoted direction notice is correct and it mirrors the legislation, I am surprised her advocate didn't advise a contest, as it is pretty woolly. In the presumed absence of previous case law on this matter it could be argued that a 'reasonable' person may feel the requirement to fill a near empty fuel tank. It does feel like the case is being used as a deterrent. I would be interested in John Wright's legal thoughts are...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

If your quoted direction notice is correct and it mirrors the legislation, I am surprised her advocate didn't advise a contest, as it is pretty woolly. In the presumed absence of previous case law on this matter it could be argued that a 'reasonable' person may feel the requirement to fill a near empty fuel tank. It does feel like the case is being used as a deterrent. I would be interested in John Wright's legal thoughts are...

Of course it is being used a deterrent. Stupid people get punished. Pretty simple really. This idiot Actually go5 to Douglas, then realized that she was low on fuel. She could have done 2 laps of “the course” before  she ran out, but No, she had to go to a garage. Idiot. Deserves anything she got. Laws apply to the thick as well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hissingsid said:

I think the direction is perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain.

its those with whole brains that are struggling to comprehend.

  • Like 1
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...