Theskeat Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 And then some - this could be the topic of the decade! I hope not and I dont think so some how, take a look at the Deepsters decision to adjourne the civil case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think Moffat's being quite clever in that interview. The first part, I feel he is rather scornful of Corkill's claims. In the second part he's taking people to task for comments that she should have been jailed, I tend to agree with him, there are several people on here who've blown the crime out of proportion. But there's also a message to Moyle there, basically he's saying "You've set a precident here, lets see what you do next time you get a benefit cheating single Mum or simillar up in front of you." He's in effect giving both Corkill and Moyle a little prod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think Moffat's being quite clever in that interview. The first part, I feel he is rather scornful of Corkill's claims. In the second part he's taking people to task for comments that she should have been jailed, I tend to agree with him, there are several people on here who've blown the crime out of proportion. But there's also a message to Moyle there, basically he's saying "You've set a precident here, lets see what you do next time you get a benefit cheating single Mum or simillar up in front of you." He's in effect giving both Corkill and Moyle a little prod. Give that man a coconut. Bernard Moffatt is a seasoned campaigner and knows exactly how to put his point across to the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think Moffat's being quite clever in that interview. The first part, I feel he is rather scornful of Corkill's claims. In the second part he's taking people to task for comments that she should have been jailed, I tend to agree with him, there are several people on here who've blown the crime out of proportion. But there's also a message to Moyle there, basically he's saying "You've set a precident here, lets see what you do next time you get a benefit cheating single Mum or simillar up in front of you." He's in effect giving both Corkill and Moyle a little prod. Totally see where you're coming from on that angle Declan, - I must admit when hearing him on the radio earlier, I just thought there's some pretty weird statement about not sending women to prison. - In this age of supposed sexual equality, I see no reason why women shouldn't be treated the same way as men when it comes to the courts, - and as the recent case has shown - if MM won't send people to prison for deception and false accounting for amounts as much as this, then surely it does set a precident for benefit cheating single mum's (& dads, & single people) who might get a 'grand or two' they shouldn't have!!! Certainly didn't think that Bernie might have been 'presenting' that side of things, thanks for pointing out that one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 This was actually said by one of the Legals. The next time a benifit cheat comes before the courts they will claim they were confused and frustrated by thier application for DHSS benifits, and most Advocates will jump on this decision for a defendant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think Moffat's being quite clever in that interview. The first part, I feel he is rather scornful of Corkill's claims. In the second part he's taking people to task for comments that she should have been jailed, I tend to agree with him, there are several people on here who've blown the crime out of proportion. But there's also a message to Moyle there, basically he's saying "You've set a precident here, lets see what you do next time you get a benefit cheating single Mum or simillar up in front of you." He's in effect giving both Corkill and Moyle a little prod. What Declan said but I couldn't say it so well. Apart from the women bit, i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think Moffat's being quite clever in that interview. The first part, I feel he is rather scornful of Corkill's claims. In the second part he's taking people to task for comments that she should have been jailed, I tend to agree with him, there are several people on here who've blown the crime out of proportion. But there's also a message to Moyle there, basically he's saying "You've set a precident here, lets see what you do next time you get a benefit cheating single Mum or simillar up in front of you." He's in effect giving both Corkill and Moyle a little prod. Totally see where you're coming from on that angle Declan, - I must admit when hearing him on the radio earlier, I just thought there's some pretty weird statement about not sending women to prison. - In this age of supposed sexual equality, I see no reason why women shouldn't be treated the same way as men when it comes to the courts, We should really have a new thread on this one Matty, but just to put things in context, women are not currently treated the same way in court as men are. The evidence is overwhelming. Lets not discuss it here though as it takes the thread miles off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-demerits Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 So what happens next? Seems to me the order on costs in the criminal case could have a significant impact on the civil case. The civil case has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal case. The outcome of the criminal case will have no bearing on the civil case, they deal with totally different things. The civil case relates to a builder (loosely used term) who is claiming monies he thinks he is due for work done and a counter claim by the client claiming poor workmanship and the costs of rectifying this poor workmanship. Any award in the civil case will not be made on what the party can afford but what the court decides is duly owed to whichever party gets the award. So you are FCMR then. Heh. As for the identity or ‘the skeat’ being that of FCMR, that has never been in doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 As for the identity or ‘the skeat’ being that of FCMR, that has never been in doubt. If I really could be arsed, I'd drag up the previous denials of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 So what happens next? Seems to me the order on costs in the criminal case could have a significant impact on the civil case. The civil case has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal case. The outcome of the criminal case will have no bearing on the civil case, they deal with totally different things. The civil case relates to a builder (loosely used term) who is claiming monies he thinks he is due for work done and a counter claim by the client claiming poor workmanship and the costs of rectifying this poor workmanship. Any award in the civil case will not be made on what the party can afford but what the court decides is duly owed to whichever party gets the award. So you are FCMR then. Heh. As for the identity or ‘the skeat’ being that of FCMR, that has never been in doubt. Don't really care if 'the skeat' and FCMR are the same person or not, but I personally think the criminal case could possibly have a huge impact on the civil case - if Mr's Ned has to pay back one of the loans, and court costs - there could be a possibilty she could claim bankruptcy (still leaving Ned in the clear?), then there wouldn't be a chance in hell of the builders being repayed money owing to them, if the courts decide the builders are 'in the right'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Exactly! Though the converse may also be true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Any award in the civil case will not be made on what the party can afford but what the court decides is duly owed to whichever party gets the award. There is a saying: '10% of f*ck all, is still f*ck all'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 And then some - this could be the topic of the decade! As I started this thread do I get a prize By the way Ans my last comment was only a p---s take on you. I did remember your reply. On a serious note though what FCMR has had to endure by bringing this whole matter to the publics intrest is totally out of order and of course we all know what happened to his Partner Will Kelly. Yes many of you may say cynically that he only went public on this whole affair in order to get his money. It may have started out like that but I know for a fact that within a very short time he had only one aim and that was to see Justice being done despite the numerous problems being created to him and his family (I for one certainly couldnt have gone through what he has). I also know that he had the opportunity to drop this whole matter on many ocassions which would not have had the slightest impact on the chances of him getting paid, but he chose not to and make no bones about it that if he hadnt been continually badgering the media, mhks, police etc this matter would never have reached a trial. I seriously believe that what we have seen here bodes well for the future of the Isle of Man and has shown to people in authority or their associates that that they are not above the law and must at all times act with total integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think Moffat's being quite clever in that interview. The first part, I feel he is rather scornful of Corkill's claims. That's how I hoped it was, but I wasn't too sure But there's also a message to Moyle there, basically he's saying "You've set a precident here, lets see what you do next time you get a benefit cheating single Mum or simillar up in front of you." Presumably Moyle will differentiate between the benefit cheat deliberately setting out to defraud the system and Mrs Corkill not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.