Gladys Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 That's clever lisner, how did you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 That's clever lisner, how did you do it? Mark the text, pick a font: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Bless, is PK still posting obsessively about me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Thank you Amadeus. (I'm getting right p***ed off at saying that tonight!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Bless, is PK still posting obsessively about me? It's just a phase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The reason I stated that the 'loophole' information posted by FCMR clearly related to England and Wales' legal aid systems was because of the reference to Crown Court, barristers and solicitors. I stand by my post, even if the quotes didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 In other words just back from the pub and looking for a fight with anybody who will take him on but preferably with someone on the computer on manxforums and seeing if there is some where that he can take his cantankerousness out and realise that in the morning he really should stop getting so pissed and pissed off and then deciding to write some guff about being at the forefront of some major corporation as if anybody cares and then some more guff about presentation which the thread is not about and then perhaps the penny dropping and irony - which needs to be said in a homer simpson voice - is really significant in this thread with it being rather serious but at the same time not so serious - the lesson today being do not come in pished up and start writing shite on manxforums blah blah blah'] Sorry lisner, my recent absences on here are entirely down to a complete lifestyle change. I don't look for fights, I just observe and comment appropriately. Oh, and I'm no longer a corporate drone. And I'm not cantakerous. And I haven't been to my local - it's now 200 miles away. Otherwise, a post that's right on the money. And changing the font - as Gladys points out it's so clever! Also probably the longest sentence I've ever seen posted. About presentation as well! It even mentions irony! Bless, keep up the good work.... I'm concerned that her Advocate stated that the certain other charges were not expected to come up but they have, it's like a deal has already been struck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Hi P.K. No change of font - just adding to the information detected by Invision Board - ie that you came in at the pub closing hour as per often an strted a wee bit of a rant - you see these computers are intelligent. How ya' doin' anyway? Good to see you about, our kid. I love the way these forum threads keep going for a ball of chalk. Anyway, about this trial thingy that is going on just now . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I'm concerned that her Advocate stated that the certain other charges were not expected to come up but they have, it's like a deal has already been struck. Not interested in the rest of the piffle, but........ It is common practice for the person who is being tried (and their defence team of course) to be fully aware of the charges they are to face. There may have been many accusations thrown around in the run up to this, but for them to actually become charges, is a whole different matter. If anything, you should be on your guard that a technicality like this, could jeopardise the whole proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 http://www.manxradio.com/readItem.aspx?ID=8101&cate=General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The Manx Radio report needs a bit of tidying up by a get the gist. Do I take it that: The defending advocate said that invoices must have been faked because they had a mobile phone number printed on them that wasn't allocated until the year after the date of the invoice. Good detective work by the smart advocate I would say. But then along comes a Policeman who says that he had made a report on another matter which showed the contractor as having that number a year or two BEFORE the invoice was written? Oh dear I hope the chap who was branded a liar got a very profuse apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It is common practice for the person who is being tried (and their defence team of course) to be fully aware of the charges they are to face... If anything, you should be on your guard that a technicality like this, could jeopardise the whole proceedings. That was what I was afraid of when I first heard it mentioned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 What a lovely bunch of people involved in this whole affair..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The defending advocate said that invoices must have been faked because they had a mobile phone number printed on them that wasn't allocated until the year after the date of the invoice. Good detective work by the smart advocate I would say. But then along comes a Policeman who says that he had made a report on another matter which showed the contractor as having that number a year or two BEFORE the invoice was written? Oh dear I think Dawn Jones' "evidence" for this was the phone book. Wonder if she's ever heard of ex-directory numbers and the fact that they can be released later if wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Piffle is right. Still, it keeps the kiddies amused.... Presumably extra unexpected charges cause more delay as the defence has not prepared for them? But surely the prosecution would have known this so why do it with the risks it entails for more prevarication? Strange to say the least. How has Dawn Jones got hold of Mark Jones' Tax Returns. Are they in some way related? Plus ignoring his evidence and just trying to discredit him by bringing up his previous. Does that somehow make Julie Corkill innocent? Dirty tactics already tells me the pressure is well and truly on. It's better than The Archers this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.