oldmanxfella Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Remember the guy from Pulrose who was sentenced to 7 years for causing the huge accident on Ballamodha straight? I don't think you can compare the case of a completely irresponsible moron who even left his own passengers seriously disabled and this. This is careless driving, not dangerous, or reckless as in the other case. Its up to the family of the lad injured as to whether this is fair or not, but the case has no comparison with the one you mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Dur.. The clue was in the first line. This accident was obviously huge for the poor lad involved but not on the same scale as the aforementioned incident. I only quoted this example in response to "Mr Wind-Up" No similarity intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Of course not trying to make anything less of the accident for the poor chap in hospital...I do think however that people are generally underestimating the regret and sorrow that can be caused to drivers causing an accident too. A guy that knocked me off my bike never recovered from it - and got quite ill through it all. People don't generally go out in their car thinking that 'I think I'll cause an accident today'. I suspect a large number of drivers on the island, had they been on the same road at the same time, might well have caused something similar. I always carry a red warning triangle in my car, ready to place it 100m behind the car so cars can see something is going on well in advance (they are compulsory on the European continent). On dark country lanes if you suffer a breakdown (and especially in case your lights fail due to electrical failure etc.) I think they are essential. At least this verdict opens up the possibility for insurance claims to be processed more easily, especially if longer term care is going to be required during his recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spock Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 We have been informed that there is possibly a judicial option for redress called a private prosecution for damages - whereby the victim and or his family get an assessment for loss of future earnings and maintenance costs and then as plaintiff sues the person found guilty, i.e. Mr Eddie Lowey the defendant for the losses, and in that case where there defendant has already been found guilty then the outcome of such a case would very likely be in the plaintiff's favour with substantial and significant damages and costs being awarded against the defendant no matter who they are because its a financial matter not related to who they are but more what they earn and what thier assets are. Is there a forum memeber who is qualified in this respect who can say what the situation is for the injured party and or his family and the ability or not to bring a case against the guilty party? With respect to the politician continuing surely the right thing to do is resign, or if not then the other members should proceed with a vote of no confidence in that member, and if they do not then the public will know they all look after themselves rather than take into account public opinion or have the public interest at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 With respect to the politician continuing surely the right thing to do is resign, or if not then the other members should proceed with a vote of no confidence in that member, and if they do not then the public will know they all look after themselves rather than take into account public opinion or have the public interest at heart. No. I do not think this is a resigning matter. It was a vehicle accident, and even if he has been proven to be in the wrong, he has not been found guilty of going out to deliberatley flout the law (e.g. drink driving etc.) nor of anything that would affect his honesty, honour and integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Dur.. The clue was in the first line. This accident was obviously huge for the poor lad involved but not on the same scale as the aforementioned incident. I only quoted this example in response to "Mr Wind-Up" No similarity intended. No point in citing it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 We have been informed that there is possibly a judicial option for redress called a private prosecution for damages - whereby the victim and or his family get an assessment for loss of future earnings and maintenance costs and then as plaintiff sues the person found guilty, i.e. Mr Eddie Lowey the defendant for the losses, and in that case where there defendant has already been found guilty then the outcome of such a case would very likely be in the plaintiff's favour with substantial and significant damages and costs being awarded against the defendant no matter who they are because its a financial matter not related to who they are but more what they earn and what thier assets are. Is there a forum memeber who is qualified in this respect who can say what the situation is for the injured party and or his family and the ability or not to bring a case against the guilty party? Are you talking about extra money on top of the insurance pay-out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Somehow I think the verdict would have been different if the accused had been a 21 year old labourer from Willaston. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy because of his position in "public" office, just that better off, older folk will always get off more lightly. That sounds like more of that working class victim bullshit that pops up occasionally on this board. I again challenge anyone to come up with any evidence to back this claim up. I take it that you don't believe that the ruling classes of the good old Isle of Man, are capable of behaving in underhand and dishonest ways then , 'Keyboarder 'old bean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I take it that you don't believe that the ruling classes of the good old Isle of Man, are capable of behaving in underhand and dishonest ways then , 'Keyboarder 'old bean? I neither believe or disbelieve - I've yet to see anything that suggests to me that the so called working classes get it any rougher than anyone else. Spartacus suggested the verdict would have been different for the chirpy Willaston labourer - the verdict however was guilty. What more could one want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onchanguy Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Another f*cking pitiful sentence for someone in power, just like the Corkhill trial. Isn't it strange how people in power on the Isle of Man get pathetic sentences when they transgress the law. 6 months conditional discharge, £500.00 fine and two points on his licence for ruing a man's life and that of his family by driving without due care and attention. Given one month to pay as well. Disgraceful. The amount of our tax money he earns he should have been made to pay before he left the court. It's time the Attorney General got off his ar$e and hauled Moyle over the coals for his ridiculous sentencing. Seems if you are in politics or the police you can get away with things us "lesser" mortals cannot. Just the same as the week where a bus driver was jailed for drink driving but a policeman was not. Another f*cking travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 At one time I used to believe in the manx justice system ,like a lot of people. That was before I had cause to bring an action against a govmt dep and a well known Local ?. To my dismay I found out that it all comes down to money and position at the end of the day my friend! So I'm afraid I'll have to agree with 'spartacus ' on this one , the more money (or position )you have the better the chance of obtaining the correct verdict ! guilt or innocence is immaterial? Even though as you correctly point out K/B Mr Lowey was found guilty in this instance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Someone earlier quoted the UK sentencing details - the IOM ones are: General nature of offence: Careless, or inconsiderate, driving Mode of Prosecution: Summarily Punishment: £2,500 Disqualification: Discretionary Endorsement: Obligatory Penalty Points: 2-5 Just the same as the week where a bus driver was jailed for drink driving but a policeman was not. Another f*cking travesty.As I said at the time, the bus driver was working, driving a bus with paying passengers on around the streets of Douglas. The Policeman was off duty, not due back in work for a few days and crashed his car on a country road. 2 completely different cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 When you consider the wall-to-wall media coverage of the Corkhill case and more recently the case of Andy Kershaw - neither of these defendants put anyone in hospital and yet we were overwhelmed by useless, lurid and prurient information about the cases, everyone who once drove by Julie Corkhills house or once played the same record as Andy Kershaw was quoted. But this case is conspicuous by its absence and even a 5 year old would have to ask why this should be so. If you or I were to be convicted of this offence, we would not be expected to resign - however, we are not in the public eye or paid from the public purse and neither to we have to abide by the Government's Code of Conduct for which includes MLCs and members on Boards. As I understand it, his seat is up next February and it will be interesting to see if they vote him back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Er, Onchan guy just said exactly what I was thinking - except put it 10 times better.. Now I'll shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Got to love the 'oh he won't get voted in now' crowd, Rushen would never vote in a convicted criminal.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.