Grianane Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 There seems to be agreement as to some level of conspiracy. The question is will the MGP have enough marshalls to allow it to run at all. It does need people to come forward and do their bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Its destined for doom me thinks, Who wants to be held responsible for any deaths/injuries that may occur where they're marshaling!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 if all marshals are sworn in as special constables and have a police warrant whilst on duty, how could they be charged ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 if all marshals are sworn in as special constables and have a police warrant whilst on duty, how could they be charged ? I can see issues with that already though, If someone doesn't move from a prohibited area, Does that mean the racing would be stopped till they're moved on?, If they still didn't move could they be arrested? If an accident did happen and someone was actually injured/killed whilst in a prohibited area, Who if anyone would be responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 the police are not above the law and they could be charged just as easily as anyoneone else - though the Island does make much use of special constables I suspect they need some form of checking before they can be sworn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccm Posted August 20, 2007 Author Share Posted August 20, 2007 As previously stated, the timing appears to have been carefully chosen for maximum impact. Nothing to do with the fact that it took place in June then? If it happened in say December and then arrests were made the following August then I would give your conspiracy some credence ...but sorry not on this occasion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 As previously stated, the timing appears to have been carefully chosen for maximum impact. Nothing to do with the fact that it took place in June then? If it happened in say December and then arrests were made the following August then I would give your conspiracy some credence ...but sorry not on this occasion No, sorry I don't think it would have been nessecary to 'rush' things through like this. No date has been set as far as I am aware for the inquest to be resumed! I would have thought that any criminal proceedings would have followed an exhaustive inquiry and been based on the outcome of the inquest IF required? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 no I think an inquest would be postponed (after a purely formal id) until possible criminal proceedings have finished otherwise you get major problems in both the jury coming to it with an open mind and also obtaining evidence from those wary of being tried in a criminal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 thats right. there's no point in the inquest recording an accidental death verdict if criminal charges are being pursued - rather pre-judges the issue. Nowadays the criminal investgation will be completed before the inquest. That being said the number of cases where someones bad driving has caused a death which is successfully prosecuted is low. Possibly because the insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to have the lowest possible charge to answer as it limits their liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Surely the inquest determines the cause of the accident or whatever, and from this any decision on liability would be made? An impartial inquiry would be difficult if a decision on responsibility had already been made and charges or prosecutions made. The real cause could easily be lost in legal proceedings? I'm not pretending to know, maybe someone more qualified can comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 the rumour was that the area was restricted but not enforceed by the marshals which may be why arrests were made. it takes a tragedy to get things made safer. if you look at where 'milky' hit the hedge at ballaspur, now there are white sheets of ply on the inside hedge. this means if you do touch the hedge, you have a smooth surface to slide along rather than a lumpy bumpy hedge that would kick you off randomly as happened to 'milky' It's not a hedge behind those boards it's rock. I can see issues with that already though, If someone doesn't move from a prohibited area, Does that mean the racing would be stopped till they're moved on?, If they still didn't move could they be arrested? Yes and Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 thats right. there's no point in the inquest recording an accidental death verdict if criminal charges are being pursued - rather pre-judges the issue. Nowadays the criminal investgation will be completed before the inquest. That being said the number of cases where someones bad driving has caused a death which is successfully prosecuted is low. Possibly because the insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to have the lowest possible charge to answer as it limits their liability. Insurance doesn't cover your criminal liability, only your civil liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 the rumour was that the area was restricted but not enforceed by the marshals which may be why arrests were made. it takes a tragedy to get things made safer. if you look at where 'milky' hit the hedge at ballaspur, now there are white sheets of ply on the inside hedge. this means if you do touch the hedge, you have a smooth surface to slide along rather than a lumpy bumpy hedge that would kick you off randomly as happened to 'milky' It's not a hedge behind those boards it's rock. I can see issues with that already though, If someone doesn't move from a prohibited area, Does that mean the racing would be stopped till they're moved on?, If they still didn't move could they be arrested? Yes and Yes. hedge,rock, it doesn't really matter at those speeds. as to the second bit, what if the prohibited area is your own private property?? i don't believe the pretend police can do anything about your presence on your own property?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 what if the prohibited area is your own private property?? i don't believe the pretend police can do anything about your presence on your own property?? Ring the police and ask them. If someone put a prohibited notice in someones garden I'm pretty sure they'd have to ask permission from the house owner to put it there. If the house owner said yes you can put a prohibited notice in my garden, something tells me the house owners would be prohibited as well. If the house owner said no I don't want one in my garden then I doubt anyone could tell them what to do. Like I said ring the Police they'll tell you one way or another. Oh and I think you'll find there is a great deal of difference hitting a sod hedge to hitting shear rock at any speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.