ans Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Only two of them are spelled correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 If you tape yourself saying them and then listen to the tape backwards does it sound like you are saying "Peter Karran Smells of PeePee"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 If you tape yourself saying them and then listen to the tape backwards does it sound like you are saying "Peter Karran Smells of PeePee"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well that just about sums up your intellectual capacity, your judgement and your debating skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Could the Manx police not call in Scotland Yard Serious Fraud squad and if the mechanism exists then should this not be done? This is not some bent Financial Adviser in Athol St. that’s involved in this scandal, it’s the equivalent to the Prime Minister of a nations government and the very existence of even a prima face reason to institute police enquiries should be sufficient to ensure that such enquiries are conducted by the very highest authorities that can be involved, especially as then even the question of vested interest would then not even be possible let alone suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Could the Manx police not call in Scotland Yard Serious Fraud squad and if the mechanism exists then should this not be done?Or Sherlock Holmes. Why be over dramatic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Could the Manx police not call in Scotland Yard Serious Fraud squad and if the mechanism exists then should this not be done?Or Sherlock Holmes. Why be over dramatic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not overdramatic at all. The equivalent to the Prime Minister of a nation has been involved in dealings of such a nature as to warrant police investigation with a suspicion of fraud having been conducted. The nation is small with an economy dependant upon banking and finance that requires that it should retain in all things and at all times a reputation of the highest standards of probity and honesty especially with regard to its members of government. They should be like Caesar’s wife – beyond suspicion and plainly at least one is NOT. If there is even a hint of something not right then it makes common sense to have the most thorough investigation done by the most competent and independent authorities that can be practically employed. Add to that the matter of personal reputations being put in question, something that in a place with a population less in number than many individual housing estates on the Mainland and the whole desirability that those with the experience, the independence, and the reputation of competence should be called in if for no other reason than to prove innocence or guilt once and for all in an indisputable way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Despite what anyone thinks of him the concept of innocent until proven guilty should always stand true...if it were you then you would want the same courtesy extended to yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 No doubt the SFO could be called in if it should turn out that there is anything for them to be called in for. Or Scully and Mulder, if it turns out to be a case for them. You can't just demand that Scotland Yard are called - just because it all seems really important. You have to follow through a process - stage by stage. An allegation of fraud is not more or less serious, in law, just because somebody important is being investigated. The same laws apply to everyone. PS - I'm not sure about the 'Caesar's divorce' analogy though I lazily used it myself a few months ago. I've been thinking that maybe it gets over used, out of context. Caesar states that he knows Pompeia is innocent of scandal -> but that she must be seen to be innocent. So he divorces her. It's entirely ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 No doubt the SFO could be called in if it should turn out that there is anything for them to be called in for. Or Scully and Mulder, if it turns out to be a case for them. You can't just demand that Scotland Yard are called - just because it all seems really important. You have to follow through a process - stage by stage. An allegation of fraud is not more or less serious, in law, just because somebody important is being investigated. The same laws apply to everyone. PS - I'm not sure about the 'Caesar's divorce' analogy though I lazily used it myself a few months ago. I've been thinking that maybe it gets over used, out of context. Caesar states that he knows Pompeia is innocent of scandal -> but that she must be seen to be innocent. So he divorces her. It's entirely ambiguous. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Simon - this matter IS really important. There is no ambiguity regarding the Caesars wife analogy. As there, the principle that people in high Public Office must be above suspicion to remain in office is what is at stake. Having a PM – or CM – it amounts to the same thing with a cloud of suspicion hanging over him, especially as in this case where from the nature of what has been revealed would lead any reasonable person to believe that such suspicion was so well founded that in other cases at least prosecution would already be under way, continue in office really is a scandal in itself. Apart from the crudity of innocent or guilty there is also the matter of being of good character and having high moral standards. To continue in the way that the CM is doing in the face of the accusations laid against him really reflects badly on him and those who support him. If he were an honourable man then under the present let alone the past circumstances he would resign if for no other reason than to preserve the reputation of the office that he holds. Also for the honour of the Keys, and for that matter the much proclaimed honour and reputation for scrupulous honesty and decency of the island, a key selling point to the Banking and Finance world on which the Islands economy now depends. The fact that he is not doing so speaks volumes about him as a man. Let’s face facts. Politically he’s a dead-duck – or at least by his behaviour in this and other matters he should be. To even be In his position if he were an appropriate person to hold the job he should know the right thing to do. He should also recognise that he should have done it moths ago over the present hot potato alone, and the very fact that he hasn’t done it shows him up for the sort of person that he is. Such a person has no right to hold any Public Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I have to say, I agree with Rog on this one. He should be whiter than white - it goes with the territory - he clearly isn't and appears to conduct himself in an entirely inappropriate manner (in my opinion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Rog, I don't always agree with some of your posts, but IMHO, you've hit the nail on the head with this one. The "forgery" word has been mentioned in the House of Keys regarding this matter, if Ned had any morals or cared about the Island and it's reputation, he would have resigned months ago. To try and use your political "clout" to silence valid investigations and to try and call it character assasination - that just smells of "cover up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Rog although a very good reasoned argument I think that you may have gone a bit too far. The CM deserves and is entitled to protection of his rights as the man in the street. He is only being investigated and has not been charged with any offence, therefore to request his resignation over something that has not been proved would not be fair. I believe that possibly in the interest of the Isle of Man he should step down until such times as the matter has been resolved. Which is nothing more than would normally happen to an employee who is being investigated over allegations made against him. Suspended on full pay. Please for the sake of this forum could anybody posting on this sensitive subject ensure that they make no comment in regard to the actual investigation. Leave this matter to the Police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Rog - got to agree with you (mostly because you have used my words from previous threads - we are a finance based Island that must be seen to be whiter than white in financial probity, and especially those individuals responsible for good governance.) Bring in someone independent from across by all means....., Hang on, hasn't that been done before? An eminent QC brought in from across, spends a year or more with a very thorough investigation into the Mount Murray affair - and his conclusions on Part I are rubbished and no action is taken..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 It's all part of a cunning plan for the good of the Manx economy. If Ned was seen to be whiter than white then the Russian mafia would keep their millions well away from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 The concept of innocent until proven guilty differs at this level of public office. The whole matter is harmful to the government and on that basis alone there is justification to call for his resignation as damage limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.