Theskeat Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 The trial of Mrs Ned starts next Friday and she has already got her first let off, she has been excused from sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 The trial of Mrs Ned starts next Friday and she has already got her first let off, she has been excused from sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. What position? She doesn't have on! Aren't we all equal under the eyes of the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 The trial of Mrs Ned starts next Friday and she has already got her first let off, she has been excused from sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. What position is that? If it is simply because she is married to Ned then by similar association Ned should resign. If it is because she is in some other way disabled then an appropriate chair should be provided. If it is because it is unfair (and probably unjust) that she is in the dock alone then that is, and should be, easily remedied. The Ned family certainly are what could be called a Renaissance family. Then again, so were the Borgias and Niccolo Machiavelli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideways Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. I agree ... make her stand ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Presumably the advocate acting for the other side made no opposition to this. The advocates and their fellows in the judiciary will have put their heads together and sorted the whole thing out. The trial, as seems to be the way à la Manx, is just a charade and a formality, where the men get to wear gowns and wigs and play the pantomime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Oh when will you learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 The trial of Mrs Ned starts next Friday and she has already got her first let off, she has been excused from sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. How does being "Wife of Ex Chief Minister" get you off anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueline Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 The trial of Mrs Ned starts next Friday and she has already got her first let off, she has been excused from sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. I thought you'd been advised by your advocate to stop posting on local forums until the trial was over? Do you really think changing your name is enough to mask your identity? Sorry FMCR, but in my opinion you're shooting yourself in the foot time after time and right now you're probably the best defence witness they've got. Have some dignity and STFU until it's all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 The trial of Mrs Ned starts next Friday and she has already got her first let off, she has been excused from sitting in the dock during the trial due to her position. I thought you'd been advised by your advocate to stop posting on local forums until the trial was over? Do you really think changing your name is enough to mask your identity? Sorry FMCR, but in my opinion you're shooting yourself in the foot time after time and right now you're probably the best defence witness they've got. Have some dignity and STFU until it's all over. Unless you have proof positive that theskeat IS FMCR then I suspect that such is not the case. I have seen nothing to make me even suspect that theskeat is other than someone with an opinion that they wish to express. I have seen nothing from FMCR on this matter for ages. The important thing is that once again it would seem that there is a Manx definition of people being 'equal before the law' that differs from the rest of the world. No surprise there then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueline Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Rog, Wake up and smell the coffee. Of course it's him. He may have changed his name but he hasn't changed his posting style or the types of topics he introduces. And anyway - you're telling me you don't know already? That you (and Red Fox) just happened to post a good luck message after a post by 'Theskeat' in the thread pasted below? http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...pic=7829&st=105 Shya right. I'm not getting into a debate about the Manx justice system - all I'm saying is that FMCR is doing himself no favours whatsover by continuing to post in the fashion that he favours despite legal advice to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Rog, Wake up and smell the coffee. Of course it's him. He may have changed his name but he hasn't changed his posting style or the types of topics he introduces. And anyway - you're telling me you don't know already? That you (and Red Fox) just happened to post a good luck message after a post by 'Theskeat' in the thread pasted below? http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...pic=7829&st=105 Shya right. I'm not getting into a debate about the Manx justice system - all I'm saying is that FMCR is doing himself no favours whatsover by continuing to post in the fashion that he favours despite legal advice to the contrary. My reply was in the hope that Colin was reading the forum - nothing more. Until I get proof positive then I do not believe that theskeat is Colin though if it proves that he is it only shows how awful it is that a person may not speak to write freely on a subject. Granted the forum is NOT a truly public place and the Forum admin (rightly) have the final word. But this is not about being sub judicea, there has been nothing that I have read that could possibly constitute a breach of the confidentiality and restraint that the law on the discussion of matters sub judicea rightly imposes, this is about freedom of speech. Ah! Silly me! That's the whole problem! The freedom of speech on the Isle of Man depends on who you are and what you are saying! Of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I thought the skeet was Crumlin. Well you live & learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 It's sub judice, Rog, no need for the extra 'a'. It literally means "under justice" or 'in the course of trial'. The origins of the rules on sub judice arise from the requirement for a fair trial and to ensure that juries are unbiased and not influenced in their decision-making (judges and the legal profession are considered above such bias). A breach of these rules can frustrate a trial and most usually is asserted when there is extensive press comment regarding a case which one side or the other (but usually the defence) will claim had influenced the jurors' unbiased view of the case before them. The same rules apply to witnesses, particularly to avoid them discussing the case and, often unintentionally, corroborating their evidence by exchanging their views/opinions of the matter under review. If FMCR has been advised to keep quiet, then in all conscience, that is what he should do. BTW I don't think The Skeat is FMCR, the spelling and grammar are too good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 My reply was in the hope that Colin was reading the forum - nothing more. Heh, I was expecting a better than that Rog. At least put a bit of effort into it, even if it is wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 So, as usual a topic starts on one subject of national importance and, therefore needing to be silenced quickly before the paymasters in Bucks road get windy, the subject is steered away from the point on a purely whimsical argument. Back to the point; A woman who is married to an ex first minister and was arrested with him, avoids being held to question in the public view, because of that marriage. How quickly would this concession be awarded to you or I? Don't bother answering that anyone. If the advocates and deemster have got together and agreed to this farce ten shame on them. how are we meant to take seriously the legal establishment in this island with this sort of situation being allowed to happen? Recently a group was started with the aim of of stopping this sort of abuse of power. Tynwald must be aware of this, they should be held accountable along with the legal powerhouse in this island. We can't do a lot about the legals, but we can do something about Tynwald and the tame MHKs there. Now that really is changing the subject! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.