notwell

What are the plans? It's amazing that anyone could moan given it's been a derelict shit hole for the best part of twenty years

The tribunal report was Dilli. Which made it clear he was an abusive opportunist manipulative sexual predator. I've just read the thread again.

It's hardly a "simple" process you stated before if you are ending up in court about it. Generally the court is not going to overturn covenants without a very good reason. Most people purchase property in the full knowledge of those covenants so you can hardly bleet about it when the issue arises.

Well they're actually not easily removed generally.

Not you.

It's nonsense. It makes no difference. Wasn't it sold a while ago to some UK investor or fund? Wrong side of the island and location to develop.

What about it? It just says no parking because someone needs access at all times.

Or alternatively that she would have in all likelyhood been fine had she wore a seat belt.

Makes no difference to the current position

Buster would have an almighty heart attack if he swung at anyone.

Tough call but the right one.

He's entirely unelectable and has been from the get go. Labour won't ever win an election with Corbyn at the helm.

It's pointless. You are too thick to understand.

Sigh. You're a weapon

He could have been dead before that happened. Very easily in fact. So it isn't necessarily the case that it was that or it needed reporting IMHO.

Sorry but if this was a Coroners Inquest then according to the IoM Courts Website you are wrong https://www.courts.im/courtinformation/courtstructure/courts/cofinquests.xml part of the inquest is to determine how the person died In this case it was the result of the head being separated from the body so it seems correct to report. That isn't necessarily the case. Death could have been on initial impact with the road.

I think its the gruesome consequences that people try to hide.( and always tried to) The fact that the racing is a spectator sport and to a large extent publicly funded, I think people do have the right to know what happens. I also think whilst gruesome, the full details will hopefully also inform partners and children of the competitors. If we are given the right to find out what goes on in just about every Gov department (FOI) we should equally have the complete picture of what happens in the Gov. run TT Races. Racing deaths are a different kettle of fish to an RTC death as nobody is paying to see it or funding the equally sad crash. Just my opinion, but I think shared by many others. Public funds fund every accident dilli. Public funds pay for the emergency services to attend. The roads to be made and maintained. For the medical profession to get someone well again so they can have another accident. Just saying

Because I'm not Teapot Cretney didn't want to cover up the risk that people can die riding bikes or road racing them. What he didn't want publishing (and I agree with the principal of it) is a list of the guys injuries. It's irrelevant and adds nothing. It doesn't suddenly make bikes " more dangerous" does it? Someone died over here a while back in a road accident. They were ejected from the car and the car landed on them. It wasn't reported. Why should it be? The idea of the inquest in this case was to establish what caused the accident that led the the riders death. In this case it was a tyre failure that resulted in a huge crash at a high speed that resulted in death. I don't see how reporting whether someone's heart and lungs were ripped out etc as being necessary or helpful to anyone. Surely you can see this? Cretney didn't seek to hide that someone had died in a road racing accident. He didn't seek to hide the risks of bike racing or riding (the initial accusation ). He sought to have some irrelevant and unnecessary information removed from a report. You do see the difference right?

You keep trying to prove unsuccessfully that Cretney wanted to cover up the risks of road racing.

Stop digging ffs

This waa what you said originally. Again, Cretneys actions were not designed to stop people knowing the risks of riding a bike. (Be that road racing or otherwise). This is what you are saying but it isn't true. If that was the case then he would actually be looking to surpress all reporting.

Yes but he isn't covering up an accident or the death is he? It's irrelevant information. The reporting of the inquest should focus on why someone died. I.e what caused the accident. It is unnecessary information and serves no purpose other than to upset probably friends and family. There is an inquest going on into the death of a young lady up north a few months ago from a car accident at lezayre. It has gone as far to say that the cause of death was no seat belt and the impact sent her out through the back window. That's enough. Would we expect a report to say 'oh and by the way she then xxxxxxxxxx etc'? Cretney was spot on here. He's not trying to cover up an accident or fatality.

What did he cover up?

Er... well on the basis he isn't trying to cover anything up then it's a fact surely? I know you struggle with this sort of thing.

Yes but your angle is that Cretney wants to hide bike accidents related to bike riding or racing . Which he doesn't