Jump to content

Mec Vannin Make Believe


Skeddan

Recommended Posts

Frances, the line of descent may not mean much to you, but all I claimed was that the Stanley's were descended from Godred Crovan through Isobel Lathom. You said you were not aware of this, and I provided the information to substantiate this, or at least cross check. Whether or not this means anything historically is another issue. Since the sovereignty of IoM was conceeded to Isobel Lathom's husband, it is perhaps a bit flip to dismiss this so quickly and lightly, especially if you have not yet traced the line of descent and see where alternative claims may or may not lie - the fact it goes through females is not of itself to dismisss the possibility that this may have been an entirely legitimate claim. That's another matter - all I said is that the Stanleys were descended from Godred Crovan, and have given you the info to show this.

 

Yes the proceedings were correct by Manx law, just as any other court martial proceedings may be correct and properly carried out by Manx law, but conducted according to military law. That opinion is not evidence that the proceedings were not carried out under military law, simply that there was nothing of itself wrong about a court martial asserting its jurisdiction. (Which I think is a point that WC very properly disagreed with since he was a civilan, albeit being tried for a crime of treason while serving in a military capacity. Nevertheless such military jurisdiction cannot be contested once asserted until it has reached its findings).

 

As I'm sure you could clarify, Manx law provided various ways that the LoM might commute a sentence, such as a fine of 6d, a year and a day in prison, exile, drinking water from a puddle at the corner of the prison gate etc. (if I remember off the top of my head). The punishment was laid down in law: since this was the case it was not within the power of the LoM to appoint an alternative punishment to that provided in law, such as exection by firing squad. Perhaps this may be taken as an example of the LoM acting ultra vires, but that supposes a procedural impropriety rather than proper conduct according to a court martial, hence should not be the preferred explanation (from a legal-historical standpoint at least, though it might be for LoM bashing). Whatever was 'said' in what is probably non-admissable evidence, the fact that this accorded with being a military court martial is nevertheless good prima facie evidence. WC's objections to being tried by a court martial also are valid which perhaps would not have been otherwise.

 

I'm on very shaky ground here, but if I remember correctly there was something about the composition of the 'inquest' (or whatever it was called) that did not fit with being a civilian trial and would have been quite improper, but which I think if you look carefully, fits exactly with the conduct of a court martial. I'm afraid I can't be too certain about this since, as I say, I have not made an in depth study of the trial.

 

I've done some research on this topic, though I have not studied this as extensively as other areas. Sorry, I have not published anything on this. Also, as I said, I have not reached any firm conclusions on this, and if there is a good case to be made that this wasn't a court martial, I'd be more than happy to conceed the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

BTW I saw on Boredom's profile the comment with the link to TimesOnline about how "Internet protests stop the building of a £700m chemical plant" in China. As Boredom notes it is quite amazing, and interesting to consider how this might have application in a local context... (Why have a political party when people can have a voice directly?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£90k for a title !
- there is a nice little earner in stamps and coins so why not sell 'official' titles - lord of Fairy Ground, Dame of Guttery Gable etc should sell well to the colonies - each bit of paper can be accompanied with a triangular crown specially coined for such tuts and if the recipient promises to pay £100k pa they can have residence with no awkward tax questions asked as to how they acquired the money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak of “a rumoured £300m”. If all one has to go on is rumours, then I don’t think one can be particularly well informed, and I think that goes for most of the Manx electorate as well. Personally I’d be inclined to count the money before thinking I’d got the best end of the deal.

 

Sorry its an estimated £270m not £300m

 

Do a Google search on "Tax research network, isle of man, vat"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

//Off topic

 

Given various comments and questions raised in this thread:--

 

FYI I am not Howe, a 'follower of Howe', an earlier Skeddan who as I learnt from a PM posted here earlier, or 'Nessa' as one of the moderators might be able to confirm (?), (Who was this "Nessa", I'm curious). Yes, Skeddan means herring - a user name I adopted because of its associations with the Manx legal system, as I'm sure many of you are aware, and which is a topic of interest to me, as I think is now evident. Yes, I am also aware of the folk story of the herring, but it is not meant to suggest anything (apart from perhaps the herring being the most common and ordinary of the fish - who as I now recall was bad-mouthed by the fluke). BTW, in that story I see the herring as a metaphor of the Law ('there is no king but the law', and that is made by the people, and also relates to the sovereignty of the people - both of which are principles I hold dear (and see the herring as a symbol of). Skeddan also happens to be a pun on my real name, but I won't go into that here. Oh yes, there is also the association with red herrings - (not because I am a ginger haired Howe!) - but because I've found a lot of red herrings in looking into Manx history. Ironically in the attempt to 'smoke me out' all you've got are red herrings (which Frances seems to have picked up on) Just ask - I've no problem being upfront, and I'm right here (on the Net). There is little of any relevance - I've covered it before. I'm not Manx, I'm not an academic, I haven't published papers or books, I've not posted here before under any other identity... I'm just an ordinary common person who, as it happens has an interest in these topics.

 

I've posted some details about myself earlier, and been upfront about this. Is it necessary to get into all one's personal details and info to post here and enter into a discussion? If this is going to just degenerate into some cranky paranoid finger-pointing kangaroo court, then it would really be a shame, but I'll not waste my time in these forums. No loss to me other that that I'd much prefer to get on with an interesting and constructive debate and exchange of ideas and opinions (and the loss of any further insights and information of the kind I've already been able to pick up thanks to others here). Frankly I don't care if you think I might be the most despicable and heinous person you can think of - 'Nessa' 'Howe' or whoever, just argue against the point, not the person. Is asking for that basic bit of Netiquette unreasonable or objectionable here? Do we call it a day, call in a moderator, or get on with a sensible well-mannered discussion? In any case isn't all this off topic? :huh::o:)

 

Over to you//

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...