IOM COURTS SENTENCING

[Scotty 495]

Not going down the same old road, but I just had to screenshot your previous “ like” instead of your default “ confused”. We all have senior moments, so don’t worry.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Scotty

[Roger Mexico 9,412]

1 hour ago, Boris Johnson said:

More good press........................

This really does not deserve a prison sentence, this is just getting very North Korea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-54784559

"found him sitting in close contact with his family and his girlfriend."

Of course the irony is that they seem quite happy for him to infect three members of his family, living there full time, who aren't required to isolate, but the girlfriend popping over for a few hours is forbidden.

52 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

It’s literally crazy. If a neighbour (ie, ‘concerned’ nosy bastard) of mine put one of my kids in prison for reporting that they’d need to have the fire brigade on speed dial for the next five years. Miserable pathetic vindictive arsehole. 

That is not what 'vindictive' means.  Reporting someone for breaking the law is not vindictive unless they did it only to get back at someone.  Burning someone's house down in response is vindictive.

17 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

So in what way has sending this man automatically to prison for 4 weeks (and destroying his ability to earn a good income and his career prospects for the rest of his life) been effective in abating the spread of COvID-19 in the IOM 

I think you'll find that Mr Fayle is not unacquainted with Jurby in any case.   His job prospects wil probably not be further impaired.

 

[Zarley 292]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

You haven’t answered my question. In what way has sending this man automatically to prison for 4 weeks (and destroying his ability to earn a good income and his career prospects for the rest of his life) specifically been effective in abating the spread of COvID-19 in the IOM in contrast to issuing him with a warning, a chunky fine, or some other sort of civil penalty? 

Oh oh! I know this one!

It serves as a deterrent for others. In the UK where they're not doing much of anything to those not self isolating when they should, they have 1) a very low compliance rate and 2) an exponential rate of growth of positive test results, hospital admissions and now deaths. 

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simple as that.

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

2 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Not going down the same old road, but I just had to screenshot your previous “ like” instead of your default “ confused”. We all have senior moments, so don’t worry.

What you won’t go down the road of actually answering the question I asked? It is a simple enough question. How has putting a man in prison changed the outcome for anyone potentially catching COVID-19 as opposed to fining him, cautioning him, or applying any other form of civil penalty to ensure compliance? 

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

11 minutes ago, Zarley said:

It serves as a deterrent for others.

But we’ve now jailed 17 people so clearly actually it doesn’t does it or they’d have stopped at 5 as nobody else would be doing it if that were true as they’d be too frightened apparently! It’s pointless. Roger Mexico got it half right. He got jailed because he’s a scumbag who had form and so it was a good excuse for 1. His neighbour (or more likely his girlfriends mum / dad given his previous offense) to put the boot in and 2. For the police to put the boot in. That’s probably about it as it’s clearly got sod all to do with covid transmission risks. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[Zarley 292]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

But we’ve now jailed 17 people so clearly actually it doesn’t does it or they’d have stopped at 5 as nobody else would be doing it if that were true as they’d be too frightened apparently! 

17 isn't many at all when you consider how many have returned in total since this all began. Our compliance rate is much higher than across, with a much better result for the community.

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

1 minute ago, Zarley said:

17 isn't many at all when you consider how many have returned in total since this all began. Our compliance rate is much higher than across, with a much better result for the community.

But you agree surely that if jail is such the “massive “deterrent” you claim it is then surely people would have stopped after around 5 were jailed as this “shock and awe” treatment would have worked over and above a fine or similar? 

[Scotty 495]

8 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

What you won’t go down the road of actually answering the question I asked? It is a simple enough question. How has putting a man in prison changed the outcome for anyone potentially catching COVID-19 as opposed to fining him, cautioning him, or applying any other form of civil penalty to ensure compliance? 

Now he is in prison , he won’t be putting others at risk, albeit for a very short time. Putting thugs in prison protects the innocent for the length of that spell in the nick. Same with murderers etc. It not meant to rehabilitate the idiots, just keep them away from us.

[Banker 1,097]

6 minutes ago, Zarley said:

17 isn't many at all when you consider how many have returned in total since this all began. Our compliance rate is much higher than across, with a much better result for the community.

I was comparing to CI not UK who have similar compliance and don’t jail citizens as first option 

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

3 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Same with murderers etc.

Yes because sitting on your sofa with your girlfriend is just like being a murderer 🙃

[Zarley 292]

6 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

But you agree surely that if jail is such the “massive “deterrent” you claim it is then surely people would have stopped after around 5 were jailed as this “shock and awe” treatment would have worked over and above a fine or similar? 

No, I don't agree at all. I think if we didn't have this deterrent we have even more people swanning around when they're supposed to be isolating. 

Don't forget that Guernsey has recently had cases of community transmission that was likely caused by someone breaking isolation rules.

[Scotty 495]

6 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Yes because sitting on your sofa with your girlfriend is just like being a murderer 🙃

 Can you not see what I was saying. ? It is the removal  from society that is the point. While locked up, they can’t be a danger to society, just themselves.

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

3 minutes ago, Zarley said:

No, I don't agree at all. I think if we didn't have this deterrent we have even more people swanning around when they're supposed to be isolating. 

Maybe we should publicly hang a few just to make a point if jailing 17 people isn’t having the desired effect? 

[Zarley 292]

2 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Maybe we should publicly hang a few just to make a point if jailing 17 people isn’t having the desired effect? 

If you had any reading comprehension skills, you might understand that I think jailing people who are too selfish to abide by the isolation rules IS having the desired effect. 

Your hanging comment is just sick hyperbole. You sound like a petulant child. 

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

4 minutes ago, Zarley said:

If you had any reading comprehension skills, you might understand that I think jailing people who are too selfish to abide by the isolation rules IS having the desired effect. 

Your hanging comment is just sick hyperbole. You sound like a petulant child. 

You sound quite cross. Are you ok? It isn’t having the desired effect though is it? How many before you think it does? We’ve jailed 17 already so when will it have the desired effect in your opinion 27? 47? 67? We might as well go straight to public hanging to be honest if you believe the most brutal solution possible is the only way to effectively enforce compliance by fear as prison clearly isn’t working!

Edited November 3, 2020 by thesultanofsheight