Billy One Mate Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 IOM Online: Mrs Corkill said he had some degree of sympathy with the defendant. ??? Can't quite figure that line out I can he is basically saying although legally she has done something wrong it was by way of ignorance or error but not intent to obtain money by deception. (Fell off chair laughing ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomTucker Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 surely its a typo and should read: "Mr Moyle said he had some degree of sympathy with the defendant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 IOM Online: Mrs Corkill said he had some degree of sympathy with the defendant. ??? Can't quite figure that line out I can he is basically saying although legally she has done something wrong it was by way of ignorance or error but not intent to obtain money by deception. (Fell off chair laughing ) Ah, so Moyle said in not Mrs Corkill. I suppose a sympathetic "judge" is always handy Also He said Mrs Corkill got caught up in events that were not entirely of her own making. So I wonder who else helped make the events? I still find it hard to understand that her husband introduced the tourism grant legislation and then didn't help her with any of the grant claims for their joint property Edit - I see iomonine have now corrected the mistake Further edit - although the typo "deprtament" still remains Final edit - they've now corrected the typo and changed it to guilty on three charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 IOM Online:CORKILL VERDICT - GUILTY OF FOUR CHARGESHe said Mrs Corkill got caught up in events that were not entirely of her own making. 30 October 2006 So is he basically implying that Mr. Corkhill was responsible then? If so then will he be called to answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Educa Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Sentense will be interesting. Probation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm willing to bet that she's found guilty of the 3 (or 4?) least offences. Mr Moyle has already commented that he doesn't believe she set out to defraud the DTL, so that'll be not guilty on the deception charges then. I reckon she'll get no custodial sentence (already been commented as such), not even suspended. A slap on the wrist and a token gesture fine, at least when compared to the amount stolen. Personally I'd like to see her do porridge followed by community service, in a public place, wearing a large tabbard to tell everyone why. And she should repay the full amount of the grant. As for Tricky Dicky, he can go free with my blessing. Being married to her is punishment enough by the sounds of it. Edit: Bit slow today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Manx radio has coverage of it now: CLICKY Julie Corkill has been found guilty of dishonestly obtaining a money transfer, false accounting and producing false estimates.Mrs Corkill (pictured), the wife of former chief minister Richard Corkill, was found not guilty of forgery, dishonestly obtaining almost £44,000 and falsifying information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Manx radio has coverage of it now: They're still saying guilty on 3 and iomline saying guilty on 4. Wonder who's right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I see the manx Knitting club (or knit club) is in session Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well I think you are all being unkind, Mr Moyle obviously thinks that she is just some unfortunate naïve women who got caught up in a whole rollercoaster of “four false accounting charges” but managed not to get involved in any “deception” (although I can’t see how false accounting would not be deceitful.) You are all just meanies!!!!! Don't you know that 'the big boys made her do it' anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well I think you are all being unkind, Mr Moyle obviously thinks that she is just some unfortunate naïve women who got caught up in a whole rollercoaster of “four false accounting charges” but managed not to get involved in any “deception” (although I can’t see how false accounting would not be deceitful.) That's puzzling me as well So she did some false accounting but didn't mean to deceive anyone. What's the point in false accounting then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 That's puzzling me as well So she did some false accounting but didn't mean to deceive anyone. What's the point in false accounting then? Maybe she thought she was playing sudoku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 false accounting and producing false estimates Why would anybody go to this extent if they didnt expect to gain from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Why would anybody go to this extent if they didnt expect to gain from it. sudoku, it's the latest craze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Educa Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Manx radio has coverage of it now: CLICKY Julie Corkill has been found guilty of dishonestly obtaining a money transfer, false accounting and producing false estimates.Mrs Corkill (pictured), the wife of former chief minister Richard Corkill, was found not guilty of forgery, dishonestly obtaining almost £44,000 and falsifying information. TBH I have not kept up to date with all this - but could somebody explain where the figure £44k came from - I thought it was £90k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.