Theskeat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 The reason I stated that the 'loophole' information posted by FCMR I stand by my post, even if the quotes didn't work. Where did he/she post that I cant find it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Bless, is PK still posting obsessively about me? He so clearly wants you sexually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Good detective work by the smart advocate I would say. Pretty funny, her detective work appears to consist of looking in an old phoneboook. Weren't mobiles added to the phone book quite late, like 2003? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The reason I stated that the 'loophole' information posted by FCMR Where did he/she post that I cant find it When did FCMR become sexually ambiguous? Have he and crumlin finally decided who will be the man in their relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 It was a nice picture of crumlin in the paper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 This case really is dragging the Isle of Man into the gutter, you can rest assured no stone will be left unturned in an effort to get the not guilty verdict required. I think everyone should be able to draw their own conclusions about the nature of the personalities involved. Rest assured there will be no winners and losers at the end of this shambles !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Without commenting either way on the case as such (I will wait and see what happens onthat one).... It does make me laugh when people claim that this is dragging the Island down.....that the UK papers will have a field day........that Westminister will intervene....etc.....blah.....blah I'm sorry guys, but we (the IoM) just ain't important enough for people to get hot and bothered about. It might make page 8 of on of the UK papers (probably the Grauniad!) and then it will disappear as quickly as it arrived. What goes on over here is utterly inconsequential to most people in other parts of the world. People in 'power' abuse such every single day. If she has done wrong, then nail her, put it to bed and forget about it. But please don't portray this as our very own Watergate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Good detective work by the smart advocate I would say. Pretty funny, her detective work appears to consist of looking in an old phoneboook. Weren't mobiles added to the phone book quite late, like 2003? Well apparently this was the final hatchet going into the chap and it couldn't be resisted. Stick the boot in and twist it as much as possible. To top it, produce the magic rabbit out of the hat and show the court photocopied pages of the telephone directory *snigger*. What more proof could you want? Apparently the guy was well and truly on the ropes - nay - he was on the canvas and just about out for the count. He simply was unable to answer the question "how come your mobile phone number is on these invoices when you hadn't even been allocated the number until some time after the date of the invoices?" The reply of "what are you trying to say? - that's my number - honest" apparently wasn't good enough for the court. The advocate had him by the googles well and truly. His protestations worthless in the hands of the smart advocate with the extreme self satisfied smile and controlled nodding of the head. Eyes wide open and twinkling. Game . . . . Set . . . . and Match. Job done. "No more questions" But the other lawyer stays cool . . . . . . too damned cool! The groundworker leaves the room, his reputation seemingly in tatters but he is still defiant. There are a few smugly smirks all round. But wait . . . . . oh shit . . . . wait . . . . stop. There has been a mistake. One almighty freekin' cock-up. In walks the next witness, Mr Plod to explain that some years before the date of the invoices, our constabulary had intelligence reports where the bloke gave his mobile phone number as . . . . . . the same as on the invoice. So - the guy was quite right and the advocate quite wrong. Oh btw, groundworker charges £10 per hour. Except today I reckon he got tiddly-pat. Advocate charges £many hundreds per hour - win or lose. _________________________________ Apparently, this was just one of a number of similar sneers on various witnesses that back-fired on the defence. Now, I want to see justice done as much as anyone else but when shit like this happens on our Island I become very, very disillusioned. _________________________________ The Manx Legal 'profession' strikes me as this: Sophism - (please look the word up in the dictionary) Chicanery - (..... ditto .....) And you think the UK ain't interested in how we run our affairs our kid? - you can bet your left knacker they will be after this farce and the others cases that are bubbling under and yet to emerge. I am this: one extremely fucken disillusioned lisner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Am I being Stupid here or what but is this in front of a Jury or not? Only if it is, Why is it only the Defendent, Lawyers and Mr Moyle going to Ballacain? 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=8108&cate=General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Am I being Stupid here or what but is this in front of a Jury or not? Only if it is, Why is it only the Defendent, Lawyers and Mr Moyle going to Ballacain? Sorry yes you are it is in Summary Court ie No Jury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 But how could she be guilty? She gave them mince pies and beer at Christmas, Easter eggs at Easter and stumped up Stg100 towards somebody's son's scrambling bike. The defence advocate was not that clever, getting your number in the phone book means very little; you could have just missed the printing for one year so that you appear only in the next directory, could be ex d. etc. Am I right in that you only get a listing in the phone book if you have a mobile contract in which case you could have the number for some time as PAYG before changing to contract. In the absence of definitive confirmation of when the number was activated from MT, then it was hardly firm evidence of anything. All very murky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 My mobile contract is with MT and if I remember rightly they ask you if you want to go in the phone book or there's something in the contract which asks you. Either way, my mobile is not listed in the phone book. Does that make me a Liar as well ? Pretty lame evidence really imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Agree Celt, the phone book is really only evidence of what is there, not what is not there, if you get my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I didn't quite grasp how she got hold of someone's tax return? Can she request something like that via the courts or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.