Theskeat Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 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. I wonder how she found that little trick out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Day Breakfast Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Day Breakfast Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Day Breakfast Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Day Breakfast Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Green highlighting by others. See y'all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Paragraph 9 confirms that the maximum grant is £50,000 - although in certain cases a higher grant might be considered Paragraph 24 details the plans and the costs involved Paragraph 25 states "It is clear from the dates of these documents that in fact it was originally envisaged that the project would be viewed as one", so can we presume one application one grant? The para does go on to say that because of a planning delay there were effectivly two phases and we assume then two applications for grants Para 32 says "I should also make clear that there is nothing suspicious in the way two applications were made. Mr & Mrs Corkill did not gain any underhand advantage in putting in two applications as opposed to one application covering the entire project....... I repeat there would be no additional financial advantage to Mr & Mrs Corkill by splitting the applications in the way they did" Am I the only one not to understand how they did not gain financially by applying for two grants of up to £50,000 each, rather than just the one application for a grant up to £50,000? In reference to para 83, would a "plain vanilla" couple be allowed to split a project and then be able to make two grant applications up to £50,000 each? I'm just trying to get my head around the whole planning / grant process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lard Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I wonder that too Although : [8] During the course of the evidence it was suggested that the Scheme under which Mr. and Mrs. Corkill sought Government grants was complex and complicated. I do not necessarily share such a view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 My spyware has just advised me not to access the site where the Court Summary is posted as it may damage my computer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I have to say I read the Judgement with increasing fascination. I'm still not quite sure to make of the case, but I think I am less concerned than I was. My understanding* is that the Judge has ruled that there is no basis for the charges that she had set out from the start to defraud the department. He also seems to slightly play down the quilty verdict over the faked quotation, noting the stupidity of the situation with respect of the Department of Tourism and Leisure. However there is then the submission of the altered invoices to recieve payment. I do not see how the behaviour of the Department can have anything to do with this. The requirements of the scheme were that invoices had to have been paid before the grant money could be paid out. The finding of the court is that she knew this and deliberately altered the invoices to make it look like they had been paid. This is totally separate to the behaviour of the department and would seem to be a simple attempt to get money out of the government improperly. This would seem to be alot more serious than the other guilty verdict of producing a fake quotation. Concerning that and Lone Wolf's statements about how common this problem is with getting 3 quotations; the High Balliff seems to understand the issue and explicitly rejects it. He explicitly says that just because the Department put her into a stupid situation by asking for quotations 3/4 of the way through the work this is no defence in law for producing a faked quotation and hence guilty as charged. Lonewolf, I assume you are an honest person, and I find it odd that you down play this issue. I agree with the Old Git, its dishonest and fraudluent and no defence in law. That is precisely the message the High Balliff is giving. *Please note that in the likelihood that my understanding is flawed please do not rely on my analysis and refer directly to the judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Concerning that and Lone Wolf's statements about how common this problem is with getting 3 quotations; the High Balliff seems to understand the issue and explicitly rejects it. He explicitly says that just because the Department put her into a stupid situation by asking for quotations 3/4 of the way through the work this is no defence in law for producing a faked quotation and hence guilty as charged. Lonewolf, I assume you are an honest person, and I find it odd that you down play this issue. I agree with the Old Git, its dishonest and fraudluent and no defence in law. That is precisely the message the High Balliff is giving. It isnt the crime of the century. Much worst things happen in the Island and dont receive anywhere near the attention this seedy little episode has. Im not criticising the High Bailiff, not on this occasion anyhow, I am having a pop at people who seem barely able to contain their glee at the sight of someone getting their come uppance. The only good thing to take away from this case is that our justice system has emerged with some credit. The high and mighty [or wives of] cant assume position, status or perceived influence will protect them from prosecution if they commit a crime. [even a seedy one like this] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I think imageshack.us uses a few pop-ups. These links should be clear Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 This isn't China Charlie! Have a skeet! That Michael Moyle's a card isn't he - "I have to remind myself that the Department is not on trial. Indeed if it were on trial for incompetance, this judgement would have been considerably shorter and the verdict would be obvious to everyone." I wonder whether the voters of South Douglas will keep that in mind come election day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 That Michael Moyle's a card isn't he - "I have to remind myself that the Department is not on trial. Indeed if it were on trial for incompetance, this judgement would have been considerably shorter and the verdict would be obvious to everyone." Presumably he considers himself an expert on the administration of Government Departments. One mishandled grant application doesnt make an entire Department incompetent. Im sure we could all take a look at any organisation and find the occasional mistake or error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 To be fair, he probably is as good an authority on the administration of government departments as anyone else, if not better. I promised myself that I wouldn't get embroiled in the muck-raking, but there you go... This is just a sad and sorry tale of greed, naivity and arrogance. It is hardly Watergate, but it does serve to remind us all that even those at the top suffer the human frailties that we all suffer. You would just hope that they would have the nous to make sure they conducted their personal affairs with integrity and without fear of reproach. By the by, IMO any kind of swindling or 'working of systems' is not a victimless crime, as we all end up paying for those that rip the arse out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.