slinkydevil Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 From Manx Radio"Do you know who I am? Do you know the power I have?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The threats to the family thing was from manx.net, I remember Corkill went in the paper quoting from manxnet because someone had said they wanted to burn his holiday homes down. Didn't one of the contractors working on the job say that they were threatened that if they gave evidence they'd never get government work again? From Manx Radio According to the prosecution, with the legal action underway Julie Corkill, wife of the then Chief Minister Richard Corkill, rang Mr Hawthorn. She said she couldn't believe he was suing GC Construction for £4,000. The court heard she then said "Do you know who I am? Do you know the power I have? You'll never work for the government again" Also, did one of the Corkill supporters threaten a witness or member of the public at the trial and receive a police caution for it? People in glass houses, etc. Looking back at alledged threats...weren't the builders (alledgely) chased off site by Mrs Ned with a hammer in her hand when they went back to collect some of their tools? I'd like to see the pictures of that alledged incident which were supposed to have been taken. And when do we expect to see the civil case back in court? I can't wait until the builders get their day in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The threats to the family thing was from manx.net, I remember Corkill went in the paper quoting from manxnet because someone had said they wanted to burn his holiday homes down. Didn't one of the contractors working on the job say that they were threatened that if they gave evidence they'd never get government work again? From Manx Radio According to the prosecution, with the legal action underway Julie Corkill, wife of the then Chief Minister Richard Corkill, rang Mr Hawthorn. She said she couldn't believe he was suing GC Construction for £4,000. The court heard she then said "Do you know who I am? Do you know the power I have? You'll never work for the government again" Also, did one of the Corkill supporters threaten a witness or member of the public at the trial and receive a police caution for it? People in glass houses, etc. Looking back at alledged threats...weren't the builders (alledgely) chased off site by Mrs Ned with a hammer in her hand when they went back to collect some of their tools? I'd like to see the pictures of that alledged incident which were supposed to have been taken. And when do we expect to see the civil case back in court? I can't wait until the builders get their day in court. Wrong they were not chased off site with a hammer, they had permision to use the next door neighbours drive way to take photo,s/vidio of the condition of the site and the equipment left on site which resulted in stones being thrown and threats made, pictures have been handed into the police as evidence in an other trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 It was suggested in court that the squiggles could have been done by a member of the family testing out a pen on a suitable piece of handy paper. Mrs C then changed her story saying that if the signature was W/C it was her writting as it meant works completed but if the signature was W/K she could not recall writting it ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Looking back at alledged threats...weren't the builders (alledgely) chased off site by Mrs Ned with a hammer in her hand when they went back to collect some of their tools? I'd like to see the pictures of that alledged incident which were supposed to have been taken. I do wish people would stop believing that inserting 'alledgedly' or 'supposed' before statements somehow absolves them of any sort of responsibility to their accuracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The "alledgely" was put in there for a bit of fun. I'm more than happy to take full responsibility for what I say on here. I remember the allegation from the builder that they were threatened when they went back to get some tools. The same tools that it took nearly a year to get back and then only under escort onto the premises.. I've also seen the picture now thanks to someone! ;-) I'm also quite enjoying seeing some comeuppance (at last) though the judgement does leave a bit to be desired in my opinion. And why we have to wait until 24th Nov for the judgement on costs is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Thats just sad, pathetic and typical. Costs? I'll hang an American flag outside my house soon. I'm not Manx anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 November 24th is the only free day Mr Moyle has, and on the same day he will sentence Mr Kelly. The Civil case was/is due to start with 14 days of the close of the criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Bernie Moffat interview on Manx Radio: 20061108_Mandate_re_Corkill_trial_Bernie_Moffat.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Im very dissapointed to hear Mernard Moffits comments on Manx Radio today, for him to make remarks about the respectability of the forums is not on. This forum has some of the best moderators of any forums site, they have never allowed any member to make threats in regard to the Corkills or any other person. Some members may make what seem to be threat against other members but as we all know its only a bit of Banter between members and no harm is intended from it.I would agree with one of the remarks made by Mr Moffit, that is if the Corkill family has been threatened then they should name the persons doing so to stop any speculation to this alegation. My own personel opinion is that Mr Corkill has made the statment in an effort to gain some sympathy out of the situation he got himself into. I think you have read something into Bernard's statement which quite frankly isnt there. He hasnt in any way claimed forum members have threatened the Corkhills. He did say that perhaps the police should investigate Mr Corkhill's claim that he was not standing because he was concerned for the safety and welfare of his family. No doubt you will agree it is a very serious matter if a prospective candidate has been deterred from standing by reason of fears for his or his familys safety? Of course, if investigated , the police might find there is little or no reason for him to be so concerned. I would hope that would be the case. Neither has Bernard criticised the respectability or otherwise of internet forums. He said he had a different opinion to those expressed on internet forums. Not quite the same as criticising respectability is it? You really ought to make an effort to report things accurately. The more so as you have made some very good comments on this topic and you wouldnt want to detract from your credibility by posting nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think you have read something into Bernard's statement which quite frankly isnt there. I agree. I think he told Mr Corkhill to either put up or shut up, imo. However the thing about not sending women, especially mothers, to prison beggers belief from someone i thought to be an educated man. What would he have done with Myra Hindley, sat her down with a cup of tea and slapped her wrist ? Or a Mother who abuses her kids ? Bought her a dolly ? To put all convicted women in one statement can only be seen to be barmy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think you have read something into Bernard's statement which quite frankly isnt there. I agree. I think he told Mr Corkhill to either put up or shut up, imo. However the thing about not sending women, especially mothers, to prison beggers belief from someone i thought to be an educated man. What would he have done with Myra Hindley, sat her down with a cup of tea and slapped her wrist ? Or a Mother who abuses her kids ? Bought her a dolly ? To put all convicted women in one statement can only be seen to be barmy. Not quite as barmy as it appears. Its the same stance as that adopted by the Howard League. Neither Bernard nor the Howard League would advocate sitting Myra Hindley down with a cup of tea but there is a definite case for not imprisoning women or at least the vast majority of women! This isnt the thread to discuss it but if you want to begin another it might be lively and interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Agreed it should be a seperate topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Nuff said. My post however was more to try and point out that in the first instance he said something which most people would think credible then finishes off with something most people would think incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I thought the point BM made about internet forums was the call on forums for a prison sentence, nothing to do with threatening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.