Jump to content

IOM COURTS SENTENCING


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

The AG's office does.

The ultimate kick in the balls was this quote that’s on Manx Radio:

“Guidance issued to visiting key workers from Jersey who failed to stick to self-isolation rules wasn't clear enough to allow for an effective prosecution.”

Yet the key workers who went to Tesco’s who said that they hadn't read and understood similar guidance given to them were told that was bollocks and were sent to jail. So we’re to believe that 5 railway workers (inc two 18 year old apprentices) should have fully understood the guidance - but 4 well paid health care professionals who work in healthcare daily at a high level didn’t have the intelligence to understand the same rules? Absolute bullshit. This place really stinks so frequently lately. If you’re poor or have no mates in high places it’s jail, if you’re a key worker or on the inside do what you like no case to answer! 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 891
  • 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, thesultanofsheight said:

The ultimate kick in the balls was this quote that’s on Manx Radio:

“Guidance issued to visiting key workers from Jersey who failed to stick to self-isolation rules wasn't clear enough to allow for an effective prosecution.”

Yet the key workers who went to Tesco’s who said that they hadn't read and understood similar guidance given to them were told that was bollocks and were sent to jail. So we’re to believe that 5 railway workers (inc two 18 year old apprentices) should have fully understood the guidance - but 4 well paid health care professionals who work in healthcare daily at a high level didn’t have the intelligence to understand the same rules? Absolute bullshit. This place really stinks so frequently lately. If you’re poor or have no mates in high places it’s jail, if you’re a key worker or on the inside do what you like no case to answer! 

The wording was changed, so you can compare those two cases.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

The ultimate kick in the balls was this quote that’s on Manx Radio:

“Guidance issued to visiting key workers from Jersey who failed to stick to self-isolation rules wasn't clear enough to allow for an effective prosecution.”

Yet the key workers who went to Tesco’s who said that they hadn't read and understood similar guidance given to them were told that was bollocks and were sent to jail. So we’re to believe that 5 railway workers (inc two 18 year old apprentices) should have fully understood the guidance - but 4 well paid health care professionals who work in healthcare daily at a high level didn’t have the intelligence to understand the same rules? Absolute bullshit. This place really stinks so frequently lately. If you’re poor or have no mates in high places it’s jail, if you’re a key worker or on the inside do what you like no case to answer! 

You can only come to that conclusion if you have both sets of guidance. 

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

The ultimate kick in the balls was this quote that’s on Manx Radio:

“Guidance issued to visiting key workers from Jersey who failed to stick to self-isolation rules wasn't clear enough to allow for an effective prosecution.”

It doesn't make much sense does it?  I suspect the truth is that if they had been prosecuted they would have undoubtedly dropped the DHSC officials who accompanied them in it, and we can't have that happening.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

It doesn't make much sense does it?  I suspect the truth is that if they had been prosecuted they would have undoubtedly dropped the DHSC officials who accompanied them in it, and we can't have that happening.

Maybe it could have been "key workers" popping over from Jacksons?.  No no,perish the thought,how silly of me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

So how have 17 people ended up in prison then if seeing other people being harshly jailed is allegedly such a massive deterrent to everyone? Clearly it isn’t. The prison only has about 80 prisoners normally I think so that’s over 20% of the prison population that have been covid breaches and it’s still happening. So how is it more effective than fines and other punishments exactly? As for the key workers I’d say it’s more about the signs they were forced to put on the boat informing people better of the rules not explicitly the threat of jail (which has always been there).

There have been no key worker breaches since. The jail sentence was highly publicised and cost their employers a lot of money. Oddly enough everyone is more careful now. The signs and the announcements just reinforce the message.

The more recent breaches have been the usual suspects who think the rules don't apply to them and, chances are, never will.

As for the Jersey workers, the guidance and explanations were significantly less detailed early on. I suspect that's why nothing has happened. As we know, that is also why the person who gave false details at the airport was also acquitted on appeal.

Edited by tetchtyke
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It doesn't make much sense does it?  I suspect the truth is that if they had been prosecuted they would have undoubtedly dropped the DHSC officials who accompanied them in it, and we can't have that happening.

Is that a verifiable fact? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tetchtyke said:

There have been no key worker breaches since. The jail sentence was highly publicised and cost their employers a lot of money. Oddly enough everyone is more careful now. The signs and the announcements just reinforce the message.

The more recent breaches have been the usual suspects who think the rules don't apply to them and, chances are, never will.

As for the Jersey workers, the guidance and explanations were significantly less detailed early on. I suspect that's why nothing has happened. As we know, that is also why the person who gave false details at the airport was also acquitted on appeal.

That’s total bollocks. There’s been no key workers breaches since - so far. It wasn't that long ago either and they beefed up the boat etc announcements after the railway workers which clearly suggests they weren’t clear enough at that time. But apprentices clearly are supposed to be able to read rules better than healthcare executives. We all know what’s going on here. No surprises in the end result. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

That’s total bollocks. We all know what’s going on here. No surprises in the end result. 

Some early convictions, including the bloke who gave false details at Ronaldsway, were overturned on appeal because the law didn't quite say what the government thought it said. The judgments make interesting reading.

But yes, it's all a conspiracy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Is that a verifiable fact? 

The suggestion that they accompanied them on the meal was only a rumour, but they were certainly over her to see them so they had some responsibility.  It was all linked to the Thing We Don't Talk About - Abbotswood:

It's emerged that four people representing a nursing home company that travelled from Jersey are being investigated by Isle of Man Police for allegedly breaking covid-19 restrictions by going out for a meal, when they should have been isolating.

The island's Chief Minister, Howard Quayle MHK, confirmed the investigation when responding to questions in the Manx government assembly on Friday afternoon.

He said that the four people arrived from Jersey on 17 June, having been granted exemption certificates the day before, so that they didn't have to isolate for 14 days on arrival, in line with the Isle of Man's standard covid-19 precautions. 

They were there to discuss increasing the number of beds at their IoM nursing home in order to accommodate moving in a group of residents from Abbotswood Home...

You do wonder why four executives were needed and why they had to be there in person, so even that's a bit mysterious.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The suggestion that they accompanied them on the meal was only a rumour, but they were certainly over her to see them so they had some responsibility.  It was all linked to the Thing We Don't Talk About - Abbotswood:

It's emerged that four people representing a nursing home company that travelled from Jersey are being investigated by Isle of Man Police for allegedly breaking covid-19 restrictions by going out for a meal, when they should have been isolating.

The island's Chief Minister, Howard Quayle MHK, confirmed the investigation when responding to questions in the Manx government assembly on Friday afternoon.

He said that the four people arrived from Jersey on 17 June, having been granted exemption certificates the day before, so that they didn't have to isolate for 14 days on arrival, in line with the Isle of Man's standard covid-19 precautions. 

They were there to discuss increasing the number of beds at their IoM nursing home in order to accommodate moving in a group of residents from Abbotswood Home...

You do wonder why four executives were needed and why they had to be there in person, so even that's a bit mysterious.

To paraphrase from the linked article, the isolation exemption certificate "clearly stated" what they were to do and they had completed a risk assessment to protect others.  

  • Like 2
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...