The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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 I think there was an upper grant limit so they appear to have put in two grant claims, totaling the £90k, which by itself was over the grant limit. Of course, that might just have been another "mistake". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot 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 That's exactly what I thought. She's just a little woman who's got out of her depth and didn't know anything about how you apply for grants or deal with those horrid big builders! and her horrid husband didn't even help her to sort out the grant applications, even though he knew all about them the meanie! and those builders took advantage of her being married to the Chief Minister and made her use any influence she had, even though she didn't want too! Oh come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As expected a stitch up - I'd be very worried if I was the builder because someone's going to have to take the rap for all this and it would appear the MM doesn't think it should be JC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I see iomonline have now agreed on 3 guilty charges. Wonder where they got 4 from? Edit - Gawd, Manx Radio are now saying 4!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Educa 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 That's exactly what I thought. She's just a little woman who's got out of her depth and didn't know anything about how you apply for grants or deal with those horrid big builders! and her horrid husband didn't even help her to sort out the grant applications, even though he knew all about them the meanie! and those builders took advantage of her being married to the Chief Minister and made her use any influence she had, even though she didn't want too! Oh come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As expected a stitch up - I'd be very worried if I was the builder because someone's going to have to take the rap for all this and it would appear the MM doesn't think it should be JC! Oh dear, the poor little lady, life can be so confusing at times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I see iomonline have now agreed on 3 guilty charges. Wonder where they got 4 from? Edit - Gawd, Manx Radio are now saying 4!! what's the old saying ?, "don't believe everything you read in the papers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So long as she is ordered to pay back the full amount of overpaid grant then I'll be partially happy. If the money is allowed to just disappear into the ether then I'll be severely fucked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I see iomonline have now agreed on 3 guilty charges. Wonder where they got 4 from? Edit - Gawd, Manx Radio are now saying 4!! what's the old saying ?, "don't believe everything you read in the papers" Manx Radio now aren't giving a number, they just list the charges and let you work it out yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 iomonline now back on 4 guilty charges. Wonder what the problem is? "He adjourned sentence until next Tuesday but has said Mrs Corkill won't face jail." "Mrs Corkill was cleared of charges relating to obtaining tourism grants for work on her private home but found guilty of ......." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "Mr Moyle said he didn't believe Mrs Corkill had set out to deceive but frustration and desperation over the Department of Tourism and Leisure's handling of her grant applications drove her to it. Mr Moyle said: 'I do not regard Mrs Corkill as having set out deliberately to take advantage of such a woeful, dismal performance on the part of the department.'" So it's all the department's fault. I must remember that if I ever need an excuse in future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurby and behond! Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 If you were a young single mother fiddling the dhss out of a couple of weeks dole money by an oversight on filling in forms, you would go to jail and there would be no sympathy from the judge. This stinks! There should be a public outcry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skig Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 If you were a young single mother fiddling the dhss out of a couple of weeks dole money by an oversight on filling in forms, you would go to jail and there would be no sympathy from the judge. This stinks! There should be a public outcry. Totally agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 As for Tricky Dicky, he can go free with my blessing. Being married to her is punishment enough by the sounds of it. Psml, that about sums it up Just waiting for the Mandate Pm as she's supposed to be on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 She has been found guilty on 4 of the 7 charges, Mr Moyle has made a difficult decission, in my opinion one he feels will keep all sides Happy. Mrs Jones Advocate for the Corkills has applied for the court to meet her clients legal costs, saying that all of her work was on the charges her client was found not guity of, these costs could be in excess of £1million. He clearly stated that no term of prison is likely but would be fined. White wash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 If you were a young single mother fiddling the dhss Such as the man who forgot to tell the DHSS he was working and was overpaid £1960 because he was under financial pressure. 60 days in jail. I'm sure a girl who was at my former school was failed for 2 weeks for a similar offence. EDIT - Why wasn't it a jury verdict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So long as she is ordered to pay back the full amount of overpaid grant then I'll be partially happy. If the money is allowed to just disappear into the ether then I'll be severely fucked off. agreed....me too and IMO lots more people will be as well..Moyle seems to be saying that with the department being at fault then don't expecte her to have to repay....that "stinks"........and if its the department's fault who's carrying the can there and are they goiung to be dismissed...."off with their heads".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.