The Duck of Atholl Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 If he was on the road and acted contrary to the marshalls' instructions then I think this is a very dangerous judgment. I'd certainly be rolling it out in my defence but then again I wouldn't be a big enough fuckwit to get myself in that situation in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, On The Bus said: Max you didn't answer my question. Are you accusing the Deputy High Bailiff of some how twisting/skewing a legal verdict? If the road was 'closed' then the appropriate signage would have been in place. Did he ram raid the barriers or something? What part of the Road Racing Act did he break by (in your words) 'abusing the marshals'? Disagreeing with them isn't abusing them. If the road wasn't closed then they have no special powers. I'm not accusing her of anything, I'm entitled to a broad opinion, as are you. Perhaps the evidence was diluted to allow the charges to appear weak? The road was closed by several minutes, increasing the risk to others. The Marshals wave you off at the next available junction, no signage is needed other than at open roads junctions adjoining the course. He was aware of the road closure and chose to ignore it. The reports were that he abused the people at the scene, you will find that abusing an officer of the law is an offence, Marshals have the same powers as a Special Constable. There was no question that he misunderstood why he was being stopped Most of what I am saying is from memory and the reports at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On The Bus Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, Max Power said: I'm not accusing her of anything, I'm entitled to a broad opinion, as are you. Perhaps the evidence was diluted to allow the charges to appear weak? That would still be a massive allegation in itself. Interfering with/tampering with evidence to alter the outcome of a court case is a massive no no. Is that something you believe happened? 5 minutes ago, Max Power said: no signage is needed other than at open roads junctions adjoining the course. How did he come to be on 'the course' if he didn't access it from an open road junction? Remember he was heading home, so it's not like he just drove off his driveway onto 'the course'. The organisers should just admit they dropped a massive bollock on this one. Apologise to the man concerned and pay some compensation for the emotional trauma and reputational damage caused by being arrested at his own home for something that he has been found innocent of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On The Bus Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 14 minutes ago, display name said: Neither your opinion,nor any of the man in question hold any sort of value for most people,so please,do carry on old chap. But just enough value to get you worked up. Do calm down old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Worked up? You've misjudged that completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 minute ago, On The Bus said: That would still be a massive allegation in itself. Interfering with/tampering with evidence to alter the outcome of a court case is a massive no no. Is that something you believe happened? How did he come to be on 'the course' if he didn't access it from an open road junction? Remember he was heading home, so it's not like he just drove off his driveway onto 'the course'. The organisers should just admit they dropped a massive bollock on this one. Apologise to the man concerned and pay some compensation for the emotional trauma and reputational damage caused by being arrested at his own home for something that he has been found innocent of. You must be a bit naive to think that it doesn't happen. Think of the scenario, man ignores and abuses marshals who are waving him off the road. Marshals inform police, police arrest said man and release details of what happened. Then, 'oh dear', we seem to have arrested the man behind Ramsey Marina, we will have to proceed with prosecution but will omit half of the details relating to the offence and accept his 'extenuating circumstances', leading to no prosecution. It doesn't matter where he entered the course, if he had left it when asked there wouldn't have been an issue. The organisers haven't dropped anything, a man driving on a closed road was reported to the police, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 2 hours ago, display name said: Nothing is humiliating to that arrogant cunt Don't hold back now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 20 minutes ago, On The Bus said: That would still be a massive allegation in itself. Interfering with/tampering with evidence to alter the outcome of a court case is a massive no no. Is that something you believe happened? How did he come to be on 'the course' if he didn't access it from an open road junction? Remember he was heading home, so it's not like he just drove off his driveway onto 'the course'. The organisers should just admit they dropped a massive bollock on this one. Apologise to the man concerned and pay some compensation for the emotional trauma and reputational damage caused by being arrested at his own home for something that he has been found innocent of. You are Robin Bromley Martin and I claim my £5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On The Bus Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Max Power said: It doesn't matter where he entered the course, if he had left it when asked there wouldn't have been an issue. If the barriers had been in position he wouldn't have been on the road and there wouldn't have been an issue. 8 minutes ago, Max Power said: Think of the scenario, man ignores and abuses marshals who are waving him off the road. Marshals inform police, police arrest said man and release details of what happened. Then, 'oh dear', we seem to have arrested the man behind Ramsey Marina, we will have to proceed with prosecution but will omit half of the details relating to the offence and accept his 'extenuating circumstances', leading to no prosecution. That's quite the allegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, Neil Down said: Don't hold back now... It's not my fault,the fence had blown down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 minute ago, On The Bus said: If the barriers had been in position he wouldn't have been on the road and there wouldn't have been an issue. That's quite the allegation. The barriers go up at 6pm, he was obviously on the road before then or he came out of a private driveway after the roads closed, which is worrying! Hahaha you think that it never happens then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 16 minutes ago, On The Bus said: Max you didn't answer my question. Are you accusing the Deputy High Bailiff of some how twisting/skewing a legal verdict? The DHB (like any other judge in a summary court) can only make her decision based on the evidence put in front of her. So it's possible that there is information that is in the public domain that was not put before the Court for some reason - or vice versa that the Court considered evidence that we don't know about. Hopefully the judgment will be published, given the coverage and possible legal implications. The FoI Response about the marina process is fairly sketchy. Because of the link problem I'll put it in full: Quote "RE: FOI 1003589 On 24th October 2019, the Attorney Generals office advised that they were at the shortlisting stage for a new marina development after receiving 3 forms of acknowledgement. RE: FOI 1153825 On 31st January 2020, the Attorney General Office advised that: - 3 parties were invited to submit detailed proposals. - It was open to the parties to indicate which site they wished to bid on. - Bids were received in relation to Douglas, Ramsey and Port St Mary harbours. but advised that in relation to timescales for the next stages, the Attorney General's Chambers did not hold the information and suggested I contact the Department of Infrastructure in relation to this. Please also advise the timescales and schedule for the next stages of this process, if any." Following an evaluation of the three Forms of Acknowledgement received, two in respect of Douglas and Port St Mary were found not to be compliant whilst one in respect of Ramsey was considered to have viability. A meeting was held between the Attorney General’s Chambers Procurement team, the Department of Infrastructure and the Department for Enterprise along with Ramsey Marina Ltd (RML), who submitted the viable proposal. It was agreed that the next stages of the process will be:- • An appraisal report in respect of RML’s detailed proposal is to be commissioned; • The parties will negotiate Heads of Terms in respect of options to lease the foreshore. There are no concrete timescales for these next steps. Judging by their response it looks as if the other bidders hadn't known about Ramsey 'winning' until this FoI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On The Bus Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, Max Power said: he was obviously on the road before then or he came out of a private driveway http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=53084&headline=Trial of man accused of driving on closed roads begins§ionIs=&searchyear=2020 Quote He told police: ’The barriers were not up at the junction. No private driveways there. Also, waving a red flag at traffic? What's that about - if they have the powers of a Special Constable wouldn't they be using recognized hand signals? or were they just making it up as they went along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Just now, On The Bus said: Also, waving a red flag at traffic? What's that about - if they have the powers of a Special Constable wouldn't they be using recognized hand signals? I think you're confusing the police with the Freemasons. Easily done, mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 minute ago, On The Bus said: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=53084&headline=Trial of man accused of driving on closed roads begins§ionIs=&searchyear=2020 No private driveways there. Also, waving a red flag at traffic? What's that about - if they have the powers of a Special Constable wouldn't they be using recognized hand signals? or were they just making it up as they went along? I think you are just being a bit daft OTB, so he entered the course when the road was open, so no barriers to prevent him, nobody is disputing that fact? The dispute arises when he spun around and ignored the marshal trying to stop him. Would you not think that someone waving a red flag was trying to stop you? That is a recognised signal, better than waving hands I would think? To be fair, they could have let him proceed to Sulby Cross Roads where he could get home. I wouldn't want to be trapped at the Wildlife Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.