thesultanofsheight 9,298 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Neil Down said: As for Guernsey, did you miss Roger's link above? That’s one case for a couple of real piss takers who couldn’t afford a fine. They haven’t put anyone else in prison. We must have jailed at least 15 now since this all started. Some for totally idiotic reasons like putting petrol in their car on the way home or buying some food so they can eat. It’s a totalitarian regime ruling by fear, public informers and kangaroo courts. Hardly anywhere else in the developed world operates like this - Saudi Arabia maybe? Or Chile or Zimbabwe perhaps. Edited September 27 by thesultanofsheight 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neil Down 7,758 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said: That’s one case for a couple of real piss takers who couldn’t afford a fine. They haven’t put anyone else in prison. We must have jailed at least 15 now since this all started. Some for totally idiotic reasons like putting petrol in their car or buying some food. It’s a totalitarian regime ruling by fear and kangaroo courts. I'm not saying I agree with it for one minute but it is what it is. People know this but still feel the need to challenge it. One of the major downfalls in it is the way some get jailed and others don't Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WTF 5,713 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 22 minutes ago, quilp said: Well, maybe. An employer might also perceive an element of deceit and behavioural issues in the prospective employees personality. If I was the employer I'd think twice and have my doubts. i said intelligent..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Old Git 543 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 20 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: We must have jailed at least 15 now since this all started. Some for totally idiotic reasons like putting petrol in their car on the way home or buying some food so they can eat. It’s actually for breaking the law, but I’m sure you really know that. 5 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hissingsid 3,640 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 They are in prison and deserve it they know what is required it is made crystal clear but they think they are special and rules do not apply to them these oiks make me sick. 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gladys 5,916 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 41 minutes ago, quilp said: Well, maybe. An employer might also perceive an element of deceit and behavioural issues in the prospective employees personality. If I was the employer I'd think twice and have my doubts. Agreed. As I said above, I may not agree with some measures but I will comply, mainly because it's the law, but also out of respect for those who have been living under severe strictures. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thesultanofsheight 9,298 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 25 minutes ago, The Old Git said: It’s actually for breaking the law, but I’m sure you really know that. I actually know and understand an awful lot it’s just that I don't seem to have had the same frontal lobotomy that everyone else has had. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Banker 515 Posted September 27 Author Share Posted September 27 Basically the courts here let sex offenders off with suspended sentence & jail someone for what most normal people would class as a minor offense. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gladys 5,916 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 On 9/25/2020 at 8:01 AM, 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. I would suggest that guidance relates to measures you must take to isolate rather than what you must do on your journey. The guidance on the covid website is clear - you must go straight home or to your place of isolation. Does the direction say anything different? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Apple 267 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Does anyone or everyone honestly believe that everybody that has compromised the 'direction' has been caught and then punished.? Has anyone been 'let off', do you think? Does anyone believe that the timing of certain decisions have been timed to accommodate individuals that maybe had to get somewhere else else and these had to be scheduled in, no matter what the potential risks? Come on, this is the isle of man, where you can....... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beelzebub3 297 Posted September 28 Share Posted September 28 12 hours ago, Neil Down said: I'm not saying I agree with it for one minute but it is what it is. People know this but still feel the need to challenge it. One of the major downfalls in it is the way some get jailed and others don't While some from Jersey are not worth chasing up by the plod at the height of the pandemic restrictions, while other key workers who went to several pubs got fined, while a few locals get sent to Jurby for similiar breaches, it would appear that the judicial system on our Island is far from fair for all. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Banker 515 Posted September 28 Author Share Posted September 28 15 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said: While some from Jersey are not worth chasing up by the plod at the height of the pandemic restrictions, while other key workers who went to several pubs got fined, while a few locals get sent to Jurby for similiar breaches, it would appear that the judicial system on our Island is far from fair for all. Exactly, key workers get fine for going to pub, local stops for petrol and jailed for 4 weeks.sex offender gets suspended jail sentences Quote Link to post Share on other sites
piebaps 2,890 Posted September 28 Share Posted September 28 It is of course extremely consistent for the vast majority of us who don't infringe the law. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beelzebub3 297 Posted September 28 Share Posted September 28 (edited) 24 minutes ago, piebaps said: It is of course extremely consistent for the vast majority of us who don't infringe the law. I can assure you I have never had any law infringement in my lifetime and do not intend to, in fact my only court appearance's were to carry out jury service a number of years ago, however you must admit that there are flaws in the system when sentencing is concerned and I have only highlighted the facts. Edited September 28 by Beelzebub3 spelling error Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Banker 515 Posted September 28 Author Share Posted September 28 25 minutes ago, piebaps said: It is of course extremely consistent for the vast majority of us who don't infringe the law. How is it consistent when key workers & sex offenders get suspended sentences and locals get jail for lesser offences Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.