The Verdict

[ans]

They're still crimes and they should be persecuted.

 

Freudian slip?

[The Old Git]

They're still crimes and they should be persecuted.

 

Freudian slip?

 

Nope s/persecuted/prosecuted

[teapot]

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.

 

I appreciate your views, especially as they are from a lawyer's POV

 

There have been claims that two grant applications were applied for to circumvent the limit

 

There have been claims that the tourism grant was from property that was being used in a manner that breached the planning terms, i.e. for long term let. Of course, now that they've got the tourism grant they have changed the use to long term let anyway

 

There were the 21 breaches of planning permission

 

There are still the outstanding civil claims

 

For a couple where the husband introduced the tourism grant scheme and had previously worked in the planning department, that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth that hasn't yet been rinsed away

 

Exactly!

[Bieryes]

I say The Lone Wolf and one of the others here Thi keep coming to try and make the washing white

 

when the washing is more like the grey of the battleships then no amount of Daz will trick the peoples minds it is white

[Mr. Sausages]

It remains the case that it is common practice for non kosher builders estimates to be submitted, along with the genuine article, to insurance companies etc.

The point being, as you seem to have totally missed it, is that the crimes committed are not all that serious and, I would suggest, all that unusual either.

 

Around 20% of your insurance premiums goes toward paying for these "not all that serious" crimes. I'd quite like a 20% reduction myself.

[teapot]

I dont think I'm alone in not wanting an MHK who (a) doesn't know anything about a major building project his wife is running at their own home and (B) is so poorly advised (or can't think for himself) to know that seeking a grant OF ANY KIND was inappropriate or an unwise thing to even consider given his then position as chief minister.

How can a person possibly be trusted to represent all of us if he can't manage his own domestic circumstances? This man was the Treasury Minister as well for heaven's sakes.

 

The building issue has been going on for ages - did he just put his fingers in his ears and go lalalalalalala at home?

 

I feel very sorry for their children it must be beyond awful for them.

 

 

She worked on the principle that she was entitled to the grant (which she was) and why shouldn't she have it, but you're working on the principle that they should have had some scruples and dignity! Forget it - this is the same person that applied and receive the rebate to tourist accommodation providers (£1200 aprox) after the foot and mouth incident - so what hope do you have of them behaving "morally" now. By the way, if we're waiting for the DTL to reclaim the grant money because now the property isn't holiday let - forget that as well because if they were so inept in handling the grant(s) in the first place then they're not likely to jump on this one. Mind you if they get a real hammering from MM then they may be p****d off enough to try and get something back. I'm still waiting to find out (nothing to do with this case) how on earth they managed to get a completion certificate on the work carried out when a great deal of it wasn't on the plans!! It would appear to get round this they applied for retrospective planning permission and got it. But who was the building control officer that gave them the certificate in the first place - couldn't he read a plan, didn't he see that there were things built that weren't on the plan! The whole project from getting round the maximum for the grants, to getting the completion certificate when it didn't adhere to the plans, to not paying the builders stinks. I don't think she's been naive, I think she's known exactly what she's doing (this little woman out of here depth shit is a fallacy!), the person who's been very naive is the builder and god alone knows what's going to happen to him now!! If only they'd paid the builders they'd have got away with everything, think about that!!!!!!! (extra grants, buildings that didn't appear on the plans and their reputations and his career), why on earth they didn't borrow the money and pay the builders to shut up I'll never know! Perhaps it's good that all this came out because now we know what sort of people they really are. Oh and there's Ramsey Post Office as well..........that's another story (allegedly)

[The Old Git]

why on earth they didn't borrow the money and pay the builders to shut up I'll never know!

 

From the judgment, para 59

 

"Mrs, Corkill has stated that she was not desperate for money and that if, for whatever reasons, the grants had not been forthcoming, she would have been able to have still funded the projects without great difficulty"

 

Edit to add - Whether than means she had the readies to pay them, or would have to get a loan and fund it from the revenue generated from the lets I don't know

[Theskeat]

I dont think I'm alone in not wanting an MHK who (a) doesn't know anything about a major building project his wife is running at their own home and (B) is so poorly advised (or can't think for himself) to know that seeking a grant OF ANY KIND was inappropriate or an unwise thing to even consider given his then position as chief minister.

How can a person possibly be trusted to represent all of us if he can't manage his own domestic circumstances? This man was the Treasury Minister as well for heaven's sakes.

 

The building issue has been going on for ages - did he just put his fingers in his ears and go lalalalalalala at home?

 

I feel very sorry for their children it must be beyond awful for them.

 

 

She worked on the principle that she was entitled to the grant (which she was) and why shouldn't she have it, but you're working on the principle that they should have had some scruples and dignity! Forget it - this is the same person that applied and receive the rebate to tourist accommodation providers (£1200 aprox) after the foot and mouth incident - so what hope do you have of them behaving "morally" now. By the way, if we're waiting for the DTL to reclaim the grant money because now the property isn't holiday let - forget that as well because if they were so inept in handling the grant(s) in the first place then they're not likely to jump on this one. Mind you if they get a real hammering from MM then they may be p****d off enough to try and get something back. I'm still waiting to find out (nothing to do with this case) how on earth they managed to get a completion certificate on the work carried out when a great deal of it wasn't on the plans!! It would appear to get round this they applied for retrospective planning permission and got it. But who was the building control officer that gave them the certificate in the first place - couldn't he read a plan, didn't he see that there were things built that weren't on the plan! The whole project from getting round the maximum for the grants, to getting the completion certificate when it didn't adhere to the plans, to not paying the builders stinks. I don't think she's been naive, I think she's known exactly what she's doing (this little woman out of here depth shit is a fallacy!), the person who's been very naive is the builder and god alone knows what's going to happen to him now!! If only they'd paid the builders they'd have got away with everything, think about that!!!!!!! (extra grants, buildings that didn't appear on the plans and their reputations and his career), why on earth they didn't borrow the money and pay the builders to shut up I'll never know! Perhaps it's good that all this came out because now we know what sort of people they really are. Oh and there's Ramsey Post Office as well..........that's another story (allegedly)

Foot and mouth claim for loses, the homes were not built then so why or how could she claim. (check dates from the court findings )

As to planning, this could have been the nail in her coffin, its just a pity the planning inspectors for Onchan were not allowed to give evidence in the criminal case, but will be called in the Civil case.

Why did her Architect and Planning supervisor not give evidence for her her court ??????????? and they are her brothers inlaw, very strange.

Anyway Mr Kelly would like to say that he can no longer build 1000+ sq ft houses at £60000.00 each, the big boys cant either

[Chinahand]

I don't know what to make of this, but with the summing up saying she wasn't directly responsible and was led on by others etc [Paraphrasing alot!!] I wonder what is going to happen with the sentencing of both her and Kelly.

 

Kelly's pleaded guilty for aiding and abbetting, while Corkills pleaded innocent and has been found guilty, but not responsible!!! Is this summary really accurate, it seems mindblowing to me!

[Theskeat]

I don't know what to make of this, but with the summing up saying she wasn't directly responsible and was led on by others etc [Paraphrasing alot!!] I wonder what is going to happen with the sentencing of both her and Kelly.

 

Kelly's pleaded guilty for aiding and abbetting, while Corkills pleaded innocent and has been found guilty, but not responsible!!! Is this summary really accurate, it seems mindblowing to me!

 

 

As I said earlier, people need to read Mr Moyles Judgment, maybe OldGit can post it up.

 

None of the orignal invoices or extra work quotes given to the Corkills have been found, the courts were told that in every situation it appears that only faxed copies have come to light or been used, whenMrs Corkill was asked why this happened, all she could reply was I cant recall, maybe the got lost in the post, at one point she did say she lost all her paperwork in a flood at her home, but then retracted when she remembered the flood took place some 9 months before the invoices quotes were produced by the builders.

 

as I said its all in the High Bailiifs findings, should have the title of all right on the night

[Static]

why on earth they didn't borrow the money and pay the builders to shut up I'll never know!

 

From the judgment, para 59

 

"Mrs, Corkill has stated that she was not desperate for money and that if, for whatever reasons, the grants had not been forthcoming, she would have been able to have still funded the projects without great difficulty"

 

Edit to add - Whether than means she had the readies to pay them, or would have to get a loan and fund it from the revenue generated from the lets I don't know

 

Well lets just hope she has the readies to pay the court costs AND the builders when (hopefully) they win their civil case.

[teapot]

I dont think I'm alone in not wanting an MHK who (a) doesn't know anything about a major building project his wife is running at their own home and (B) is so poorly advised (or can't think for himself) to know that seeking a grant OF ANY KIND was inappropriate or an unwise thing to even consider given his then position as chief minister.

How can a person possibly be trusted to represent all of us if he can't manage his own domestic circumstances? This man was the Treasury Minister as well for heaven's sakes.

 

The building issue has been going on for ages - did he just put his fingers in his ears and go lalalalalalala at home?

 

I feel very sorry for their children it must be beyond awful for them.

 

 

She worked on the principle that she was entitled to the grant (which she was) and why shouldn't she have it, but you're working on the principle that they should have had some scruples and dignity! Forget it - this is the same person that applied and receive the rebate to tourist accommodation providers (£1200 aprox) after the foot and mouth incident - so what hope do you have of them behaving "morally" now. By the way, if we're waiting for the DTL to reclaim the grant money because now the property isn't holiday let - forget that as well because if they were so inept in handling the grant(s) in the first place then they're not likely to jump on this one. Mind you if they get a real hammering from MM then they may be p****d off enough to try and get something back. I'm still waiting to find out (nothing to do with this case) how on earth they managed to get a completion certificate on the work carried out when a great deal of it wasn't on the plans!! It would appear to get round this they applied for retrospective planning permission and got it. But who was the building control officer that gave them the certificate in the first place - couldn't he read a plan, didn't he see that there were things built that weren't on the plan! The whole project from getting round the maximum for the grants, to getting the completion certificate when it didn't adhere to the plans, to not paying the builders stinks. I don't think she's been naive, I think she's known exactly what she's doing (this little woman out of here depth shit is a fallacy!), the person who's been very naive is the builder and god alone knows what's going to happen to him now!! If only they'd paid the builders they'd have got away with everything, think about that!!!!!!! (extra grants, buildings that didn't appear on the plans and their reputations and his career), why on earth they didn't borrow the money and pay the builders to shut up I'll never know! Perhaps it's good that all this came out because now we know what sort of people they really are. Oh and there's Ramsey Post Office as well..........that's another story (allegedly)

Foot and mouth claim for loses, the homes were not built then so why or how could she claim. (check dates from the court findings )

As to planning, this could have been the nail in her coffin, its just a pity the planning inspectors for Onchan were not allowed to give evidence in the criminal case, but will be called in the Civil case.

Why did her Architect and Planning supervisor not give evidence for her her court ??????????? and they are her brothers inlaw, very strange.

Anyway Mr Kelly would like to say that he can no longer build 1000+ sq ft houses at £60000.00 each, the big boys cant either

 

She already had holiday lets running before this latest project.

[All Day Breakfast]

edited out - back soon!

[asitis]

I confess to being one of the sceptics that has difficulty with the whole 'cannot recall' answers. I do feel for Richard not being aware all this was going on around him !!

 

BTW Faxed copies cannot be sent for handwriting analysis ! Coincidence maybe.

[All Day Breakfast]