OneArmedScissor Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 QUOTE(OneArmedScissor @ Nov 10 2007, 10:10 PM) Wasn't there an MHK who was once done for arson or something? That was Rushen wasn't it? You've done it now! Besides are we allowed to say such snippets of truth? Rehablilitation of offenders act 1976 (made the date up). Maybe maybe not, who knows? It isnt exactly a secret though is it? John Wright cleared this point up, in another thread. Since Phil Gawne, makes no secret of his past - it's on the official Tynwald profile, and has given media interviews referring to the incident, the rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't prevent us mentioning it. Yeah, I was just going to say that I'm sure the person in question has spoken openly about it and that it was in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 John Wright cleared this point up He is ace isnt he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Yeah, I was just going to say that I'm sure the person in question has spoken openly about it and that it was in the public domain. There was an interesting radio 4 documentary about him that touched on the issue a few years ago - It's still up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Thanks for vote of confidence, just bacxk from Hols and catching up The fine is about on par with most Due cares I see in court, no disqualification and 2 or 3 pp Won't increase insurance much The other party can sue for damages which will be paid out by Mr Loweys insurers, it will take years, the damages will include the actual injury, rehabilitation, care and nursing costs, loss of wages etc, not consolation but a help They will be reduced by the proportion the other person was to blame, ie it will be taken into account he was standing in the road in the dark with no warning triangle, no flashing hazards lights no hi visibility jacket, I choose these items as examples of what the court will take into account not to attach any blame He may get 50:50 he may get a lot less 25:75 or 10:90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 They will be reduced by the proportion the other person was to blame, ie it will be taken into account he was standing in the road in the dark with no warning triangle, no flashing hazards lights no hi visibility jacket, I choose these items as examples of what the court will take into account not to attach any blame I did wonder about that. Not having any side lights or hazard lights on and standing in the road in the dark perhaps wasn't the wisest thing to do and he's unfortunately now suffering the terrible consequences. I've a high vis waistcoat at home, I think I'll keep it in the car this winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Lets see now ? Mr Lowey by all accounts just scraped through the eye test to ascertain his suitability to be driving He also stated in court that he did not recall hitting the back of the vehicle !,a fact that the judge apparently did not accept . That being the case , it seems to me that he's either lying ,or going senile? Assuming that Mr Lowey is a man of integrity , my deduction from this , I.M.O. --- is --that he can't see very well and he can't remember very well . Isn't it time he stood down??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 "scraped through" still means "passed" though, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Lets see now ? Mr Lowey by all accounts just scraped through the eye test to ascertain his suitability to be driving He also stated in court that he did not recall hitting the back of the vehicle !,a fact that the judge apparently did not accept . That being the case , it seems to me that he's either lying ,or going senile? Assuming that Mr Lowey is a man of integrity , my deduction from this , I.M.O. --- is --that he can't see very well and he can't remember very well . Isn't it time he stood down??? Couldn't it be he was mistaken? It was dark, the incident happened in a split second and the aftermath would be so vivid and traumatic, I could well believe that he genuinely thought he hadn't hit the back of the vehicle. Sometimes people are just wrong, not liars or senile. There's nothing in this case that indicates he isn't fit to be in Tynwald anymore - driving is another matter. I can understand the reaction of people who compare the consequences of this incident on the victim with two penalty points and that was initially my reaction. But we have to remember there's no suggestion that this was on purpose, or even that he was being delibrately wreckless by driving drunk or at excessive speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iomrob Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 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? correct , in my view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 excuse me? It was dark? You mean he didn't have his headlights on?!!!! I can just almost with a great deal of help and suspending any disbelief imagine that you might just possibly miss seeing a person in the dark cavorting about the road with no hi viz - but you come up or down that road with your lights on, not speeding and you miss seeing a CAR at the side of the road?!!! Heaven help us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Where did you hear he didn't see the car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 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? correct , in my view Correct in what way, in your view? What with the verdict being guilty and that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Where did you hear he didn't see the car? He actually hit it,so I would say that's a pretty good indication Mr S? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Where did you hear he didn't see the car? He actually hit it,so I would say that's a pretty good indication Mr S? That's an indication that he didn't pull out far enough. He said that he pulled out to go around, and there's evidence that he "clipped" it. Possibly saw it late, and definitely misjudged his manoeuvre. That's why he was convicted. I've only read the media reports, but I can't see any suggestion that he didn't see the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iomrob Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 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? correct , in my view Correct in what way, in your view? What with the verdict being guilty and that. i was meaning the Manx justice system in general . but its same the world over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.