ballaboy Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The Clarksons have failed to have the Deemster recuse himself and hand over the case to another deemster, I thought the idea tat someone could call for the removal of a judge because they did not like his ruling, was unbelievable in its cheek. Now surely they should stop these very expensive ( for them) delaying tactics and accept that inevitable, which that PROWS have been established on Langness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The same Deemster who made the original decision is to conduct the review of it. Now what could possibly be wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaboy Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 The same Deemster who made the original decision is to conduct the review of it. Now what could possibly be wrong with that? Why cant the original judgement be the end of it, they were out of time for a petition of doleance, Why should they try to get a petition out of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 If PROWL win I will set bear traps around the currently restricted parts of Langness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 There is scope for a petition of doleance to be made out of time, they won't be the only ones to seek such. They are using every avenue available to them. The legal system is overly lengthy and complex for a very good reason. I'll leave you to work out what that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 That is the next step, to persuade the Deemster to allow them to petition for Doleance, ie Judicial Review, out of time. Then if successful there will have to be a hearing on the Doleance application. This has a long way to run. They are as entitled as any one else to pursue their remedies to the end. The actual judgment on the courts/ judgments im website is long, but an interesting,analysis of when a deemster can/cannot sit, and what the test is. Litigants cannot pick and chose their judge, just because they have appeared before him previously and not liked the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 There is scope for a petition of doleance to be made out of time, they won't be the only ones to seek such. They are using every avenue available to them. The legal system is overly lengthy and complex for a very good reason. I'll leave you to work out what that is. MONEYMONEYMONEY ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 If PROWL win I will set bear traps around the currently restricted parts of Langness. Psst, its dog they walk around there, not bears, your not lomg of the ferry are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The same Deemster who made the original decision is to conduct the review of it. Now what could possibly be wrong with that? It isn't his decision that he's reviewing. The Clarkesons attempted to get the inspector's decision thrown out on the basis that he was biased. The Deemster threw it out because their reasons were spurious. Now they are challenging that the inspector's decision was wrong. These are different isssues, the Deemster could for example find the inspector was an appropriate person to make the decision, but that he came to the wrong decision. You can't keep picking and choosing judges until you find one that agrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Psst, its dog they walk around there, not bears, your not lomg of the ferry are you. Maybe Clarkson could start farming bears there. Or Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterflies Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 If PROWL win I will set bear traps around the currently restricted parts of Langness. This is not the clarksons against prowl, prowl were just a group of concerned citizens who highlighted this issue. It is the Government and independent inspector who the clarksons are fighting, prowl can't "win" anything. I just hope that clarksons are made to pay the very big legal bill they're causing the government. Thought they were leaving anyway if they were ruled against, good effin riddence. Has anyone been walking there since this decision? They don't even live there anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 PROWL have caused this legal bill. The government didn't have a dog in this fight until they got involved. PROWL have cost ME money via my taxes. They are not "concerned citizens", but jumped up wankers who want others to pay for the battles they want to be fought. I hope Clarkson sets bear traps for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 who want others to pay for the battles they want to be fought. just like legal aid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterflies Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Your taxes were the same whether or not the rights of way were looked into, tugger. I don't like many of the ways my taxes are spent too but thats life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The waste of this money on this stupid vendetta means that money can't be spent on more worthwhile causes. I hope the leaders of PROWL break their legs walking on Clarkson's land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.