ans Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 So, as usual a topic starts on one subject of national importance I hate to break it to you there chief, but your average man on the street couldn't care less about this subject. It may be important to a handful of people, but to assign it national importance is somewhat dramatic. 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 I hate to break it to you there chief, but your average man on the street couldn't care less about this subject. It may be important to a handful of people, but to assign it national importance is somewhat dramatic. I just thought that, as it brought about the resignation of the Chief Minister of our Parliament, negative coverage in the ajoining island and many thousands of words and opinions on forums, in papers and on the radio, that it was quite important in this nation. Attempts to reduce the impact of it on the reputation of the IOM are welcome by some. I am of the opinion that it should not be allowed to slip into the obscurity that the 'establishment' would like it to. Glad you don't argue about the other points I made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueline Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 My reply was in the hope that Colin was reading the forum - nothing more. Oh please. Grant me a little intellegence. Put your shovel away on this one. 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. At no time did I say that he may not speak freely. I was commenting that he is doing himself little favours by doing so in the manner he choses. I've heard little about this case on here other than allegations from FMCR and Crumlin. For reasons best known to themselves, Mr and Mrs Corkill do not appear to have logged on and started and posted on numerous threads about the case, their part in the case and the timescales involved. Neither do they appear to have logged on to insult the other parties - as has happened on many occasions here. And take a step back for a minute and consider how you might feel about them if they did. It's like two children. Either one of them or both of them has done something wrong. One of them says nothing and the other spends the next five minutes of your time trying to convince you it wasn't them. I'm not saying who is right or wrong in this. I have my own opinions and they have nothing to do with the point I am making. Call me old fashioned but I prefer to wait to hear all sides of the argument before I make my mind up fully. For some reason you and others appear to have already decided who the guilty parties are. Quite ironic really. The parties shouting about the inadequacy of the Manx justice system are the very ones who would have the Corkills hung, drawn and quartered without even the luxury of a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 For some reason you and others appear to have already decided who the guilty parties are. Quite ironic really. The parties shouting about the inadequacy of the Manx justice system are the very ones who would have the Corkills hung, drawn and quartered without even the luxury of a trial. Really, Jacqueline - you don't seriously expect someone like Rog to suddenly start being reasonable, do you? You must know that a 'not guilty' verdict - even if it was supported by massive amounts of convincing evidence, would have him screaming about the inadequacies of the Manx judicial system, whilst a 'guilty' verdict followed by anything less than hanging, drawing and quartering will be seen as the defendant being granted special privileges because of 'who she is.' Please, if you must make these reasonable and well thought out posts, try not to direct them to Rog - he's an elderly (60th year?) man who is easily confused by such things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholmondley-Warner Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I thought the skeet was Crumlin. Well you live & learn. I think that Crumlin and FCMR are one and the same so, is "The Skeat" yet another of his identities, must agree that the spelling has improved but "The Skeat" does seem to know all the relevant facts, dates etc just as Crumlin and FCMR did. Has he been rumbled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I think that Crumlin and FCMR are one and the same No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan 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. But the issue in this thread is "Should Mrs Ned sit in the dock during her trial?" Hardly one of National importance, and one that can be dealt with quickly. As to all the other stuff, I, and I assume everyone else, wants to see justice done. That is what the trial is for. Various posters have done sterling work in bringing this matter to light, but right now the intelligent course of action (and one FCMR seems to have taken) is to keep stumm. They'll be plenty of time to discuss it afterwards, but we don't want the trial jepodised do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholmondley-Warner Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I think that Crumlin and FCMR are one and the same No. I'll put money on it that they are. neither of them can spell and use the same grammar and what are their favourite subjects? the Neds! they both know exactly whats going on in court, when and why. Look back through their posts they talk about little else. One and the same person in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I'll put money on it that they are. I'll take that bet. Free money is always appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I'll put money on it that they are. I'll take that bet. Free money is always appreciated. ans is a mod, He could tell from the I.P address if it was the same as FMCR's was couldn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 People can redial and get new IPs any time they want. People can proxy. My confidence in it is nothing related to being a mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 People can redial and get new IPs any time they want. People can proxy. My confidence in it is nothing related to being a mod. So ans is either Crumlin or FCMR. What a fantastic double bluff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Rumbled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholmondley-Warner Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I suppose that two separate computers which would have different IP addresses would do the job, one at work, one at home, a lot posters will have access to a 2nd PC at work and even a mod would not be able to say with certainty whether 2 posters were one and the same. Funny that neither FCMR or Crumlin have posted since mid February and now it's April, if FCMR was told to shut up for the sake of the trial, then why has Crumlin also shut up - he had as much to say about the Neds and would be able to carry on posting without a problem not being a witness, perhaps they have both taken an extended vacation together and persuaded the Skeat to take over the mantle of the "Neds Trial Bulletin Service" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I really do wonder if the lady can possibly get a fair trial anyhow. If the evidence of this forum is any guide a whole lot of people seem to have decided the rights and wrongs of the case already. Its a fairly minor case anyhow in criminal terms and has only become high profile, on the Island, because of who her husband is. I cant really imagine why being excused from sitting in the dock should be viewed as a let off ? As for the rest of the thread it would be far more rivetting if one of the post writing experts could identlfy [or more likely imagine] the lady in question as secretly posting under a forum nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.