Gladys Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well, it's all over now. It doesn't really matter to me what the sentence is because the real sentence will be the stain on the character of those involved that will be carried for ever more. Reading between the lines, the guilt probably has more to do with naivity and arrogance than a real intent to defraud. This has been a real lesson in naivity (don't try to work any system unless you fully understand it and all factors outside of the system) and any arrogance has been surely knocked out. So an end to it now; time to repair the ant hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Well, it's all over now. It doesn't really matter to me what the sentence is because the real sentence will be the stain on the character of those involved that will be carried for ever more. Reading between the lines, the guilt probably has more to do with naivity and arrogance than a real intent to defraud. This has been a real lesson in naivity (don't try to work any system unless you fully understand it and all factors outside of the system) and any arrogance has been surely knocked out.So an end to it now; time to repair the ant hill. This case has actually done a great deal to enhance the reputation of the Island. Hey look guys we actually have a justice system which isnt afraid to tackle crimes committed by so called VIPs.[or their wives] That said it never was the crime of the century. It was a minor fraud case involving relatively small amounts of money. Shock horror a dummy quotation was submitted! Has no one on this forum never submtted an insurance claim for roof repairs or similar? If you genuinely have sought out three independent quotes you are highly unusual. As Gladys says, draw a line under it and lets get on with living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 /spits on the piss take that is supposed to be a legal system on the Isle of Man. Anyone know any good arsonists? PMSL - note to all, that was a JOKE, not as big a joke as the government who puts a single parent in prison for £244 overpayment of benefit then gives the chief minister and his wife £90,000. Fuct if Im paying tax ever again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You're fuct then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Lol wish I was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Anyone know any good arsonists? Yes. have you read candidate manifestos and bios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Anyone know any good arsonists? Fireman Sam's evil twin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Shock horror a dummy quotation was submitted! Has no one on this forum never submtted an insurance claim for roof repairs or similar? If you genuinely have sought out three independent quotes you are highly unusual. Sorry, but I've never submitted any false quotations and I resent the implication that we're all at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 As Gladys says, draw a line under it and lets get on with living. I'm still interested in the sentencing first, if that is okay with you? Yes she did wrong, and it maybe minor in the grand scheme of things - but I would still like to see some well imposed sentence and have faith in our legal system that status doesn't define you on that sentencing scale. I'm not confident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 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 When you say - "for the court to meet her costs" - what does that mean? For the court do we read public money? If that's the case then she will have had 1 million and ninety thousand pounds of "public money". Nice one!!!!! I should have tried for more when I applied for (and was refused) a grant to replace my windows! Obviously the bigger the grant the more likely you are to get it, especially if your signature looks like a squiggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm still find it hard to believe that no other parties in the marriage weren't aware of what shes was doing with large amounts of money. I think she carried a lot of the heat for someone else as well. It will be interesting to hear the sentancing next week. Sentencing - A fine. You watch. And she won't have any trouble paying that from the income she's getting from the long term lets on the property, which she has been given by DOLGE as she has now changed the use of the lets. Nice one JC - apply for a tourist grant - get it - then change to permanent lets (which by the way she was doing before anyway and no one has bothered to fine her for that - unlike the chap in Ramsey who let his holiday property to a friend of his daughters who had split up from her partner - he got caught, fined £2000 and she had to move out). So all in all there looks like there's been collusion between DTL and DOLGE and JC/RC allegedly! and they wonder why the general public are disillusioned with government and the law. FCS be consistent - it's never going to happen, if you're in the "club" there's one rule for you and if you're not then God help you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If the court pays her legal costs then it will be further public money spent on bailing out high profile individuals who have been caught with their fingers in the till. It won't happen, but voters need to show this shower in power, that the man in the street is fed up with being the bread winner for others to profit ! (did I spell that right or does it have two F's' in it ) ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANDA Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 And she won't have any trouble paying that from the income she's getting from the long term lets on the property, which she has been given by DOLGE as she has now changed the use of the lets. Nice one JC - apply for a tourist grant - get it - then change to permanent lets Does she not have to pay that back, if not, why not ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Well Dawn Jones will be able to retire if she has billed and received more than £1,000,000 in costs from Mrs Corkhill. The application would be for costs to come out of public funds. I don't think she has a hope in hell personally. She has been founf guilty after all. The prosecution was by an employed advocate in the Attorney generals office. His time maybe £20,000 plus police investiagtion time and court time, prosecution maybe cost £250,000 all in. I personally think in this case justice has been seen to be done. The court has said 1. You did not set out deliberately to defraud from day 1 2. When it got complicated, and to resolve matters you cheated, even though you were entitled to the money if you had done it properly. Thats the difference from the benefit cheat, they weren't entitled at all. Very few go to prison, especially first offenders, most pay it back week by week £1.00 at a time. As for sentence well lets see in stead of speculating. What it does show is a strong legal system and judiciary able to take on the highest in the land fearlessly and not giving in to temptation and dismissing the charges when a key witness went ill. So much for those who castigated the law and the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The court has said 1. You did not set out deliberately to defraud from day 1 I absolutely can't beleive this statement!!!! It seems that the courts are doing as little as they possibly can to 'throw the book' , whilst at the same time paying small time 'homage' to the law to pacify the general public that 'justice' can be done. I feel the courts are trying to shift the blame away from the defendant, towards the departments that awarded the grants. The whole thing stinks, IMHO all of the grant money should be taken back by the government, - if it was awarded as a tourism grant, then the accommodation should be solely used for tourists - no ifs/buts,maybes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.