ans Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I'm surprised anyone is arguing for his rights to see the children. What about their right not to be forced to spend time in the company of an alcoholic incapable of controlling his own actions. Letting him see his kids is not some magic band-aid that's going to make all his problems go away. Sure, he needs help. But perhaps he should be seeking it out himself instead of spending his time selling his story to Sunday papers. In the meantime, being an emotional drunk does not give you permission to break the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 See it? Well done... All I seem to see from you, sitting in the UK, is you saying how bad the IOM is. How bad the justice system is, how bad the MHKs are, how bad everything is over here. It's tedious and it's boring. I thought the encounter that led to the jailing was a chance one? You would do if you believed Kershaw. You'd probably also believe that he was nice and charming to his ex wife and her new partner during the chance encounter I do still have some sympathy for Kershaw, he is so obviously messed up. I also have sympathy for his ex partner and the children and they need protection from him in the form of a court order that isn't ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 That's why I put 'sending' in quotes I realised that AT - nothing wrong in what you said and gathered this when followed your link - sorry if it seemed I was suggesting otherwise. I was picking up on idea of sending him off the Island and what Moyle apparently said - which suggested he could have officially passed a sentence of banishment and actually sent him off the Island. I think it's sometimes offered as an alternative to imprisonment. The defendant agrees to leave the island and not come back for x years and the court agrees not to send him to prison. This sort of makes sense - if that involves a deal between defendant and prosecution, and prosecution drops charges on condition. Otherwise it could be a way that Lt Governor may commute a sentence as part of Royal Prerogative (a bit similar to commuting death sentence to 'transportation' at option of person convicted). However Moyle seemed to suggest that it was within his power to officially banish someone from the Island - though he did not actually do this in this case. AT - you say "as far as I am aware, provided he has not met the residency (currently live here >5yrs) requirements, they still have that option". Is that really so? Is it actually in the power of the court to do this and they have this sentencing option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 AT - you say "as far as I am aware, provided he has not met the residency (currently live here >5yrs) requirements, they still have that option". Is that really so? Is it actually in the power of the court to do this and they have this sentencing option? I'm too lazy to go find a link, but I've seen examples of this over the years. From memory it's mostly applied to people who are visiting short term here though, not people who have set up residence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamplemousse Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 PK - perhaps his ex couldn't cope with the situation HE put HER and their children in. You don't know the half of it. His 'meltdown' has as much to do with Andy Kershaw not being able to get what he wants and treat people how he wants as much as it has to do with not being able to see his kids. He DID have complete access but couldn't stop getting drunk and being abusive. Should she and the kids have to walk through landmines every single day because he can't cope with the consequences of his own behaviour and is intent on blaming everyone but himself? Someone had to keep on being a responsible parent in the thick of all this and that's exactly what she's done, making tough decisions and keeping her mouth shut about the whole sorry affair - for the sake of the kids. There are always two sides to these stories. Firstly I don't think jailing the father of your children on a chance encounter (if that's what it was) is the action of a responsible parent. There is also the question of whether or not the children would ever be at risk while with him - something that has simply not been touched on but should be the only basis on which he should be prevented from seeing them - and the answer to which is almost certainly "don't know". His histrionics don't help that's for sure. Secondly you said it yourself "because he can't cope" he needs help, not a jail sentence. I'm aware there are two sides - I've seen both sides unfolding. All you ever hear in the press, however, is Kershaw's side, and he is, to say the least, an unreliable narrator. I'm not sure what you mean by 'at risk' but ans is right, the children have the right to be protected from the distress of their drunk father hurling abuse at their mother. Has it occurred to you that the children did not want to see him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Ah I'm not so lazy after all. First one I found. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/isle-of-man-busi...D-AND.439526.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I'm too lazy to go find a link, but I've seen examples of this over the years. From memory it's mostly applied to people who are visiting short term here though, not people who have set up residence. Yes, I think that's normally how it works. I suppose in Kershaw's case, although he does have a home here he has options of place(s) to stay in the UK so it seems a better alternative all round for him to go back to the UK and give him the chance to cool off and try to get his like back in order. It's a better alternative than simplyputting back in prison over here. Seems a good example of Manx justice to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 All I seem to see from you, sitting in the UK, is you saying how bad the IOM is. How bad the justice system is, how bad the MHKs are, how bad everything is over here. It's tedious and it's boring. Then don't read my posts, simple as. However I'll think you'll find people like Roly Drower, GC Construction etc etc would agree that MHK's, the justice system and so forth are not exactly leading lights. That's not my fault by the way.... You would do if you believed Kershaw. You'd probably also believe that he was nice and charming to his ex wife and her new partner during the chance encounter I do still have some sympathy for Kershaw, he is so obviously messed up. I also have sympathy for his ex partner and the children and they need protection from him in the form of a court order that isn't ignored. I'm sure he was less than charming he's so messed up. The kids will have seen him in that state and may blame the mother for leaving him. Even worse he probably looks like a stranger to them. Like I posted before - lose / lose. This type of mess is so common these days there must be better ways of dealing with it surely? His mum lives just around the corner from where I am right now. If he comes over you never know, I might bump into him in the local. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 This type of mess is so common these days there must be better ways of dealing with it surely? What ever the true differences between Kershaw and Banner are they won't be resolved by Advocates, High Baillifs, prisons or Mum. If there were to try mediation then could sort this out privately and with more dignity. They might both perhaps learn why they are an incompatible couple and Kershaw could let the issue go with a clearer head. Otherwise it's down to time - the great healer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 His mum lives just around the corner from where I am right now. If he comes over you never know, I might bump into him in the local. I'm sure your company will prove a great comfort to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 the justice system and so forth are not exactly leading lights. Compared to what exactly? If I could be arsed I'm sure I could compile a list of every political and financial scandal and cock up that's happened in the UK over the last decade. So why do you, smugly sitting there in your two houses with a great job and dinner at the Tate, feel the constant need to berate the IOM when it's little different to the wonderful UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I think 'sending' him off island for a while is a very good judgement, and probably a step in the right direction. Moyle apparently said that he wasn't "officially banning or excluding him from the Island." I'm astonished at this tacit admission that the Manx "justice" system has completely failed in this case. Jailing him was obviously the worst thing to do but they did it anyway. And it's just pathetic how so many are surprised that the only difference it has made is to make a bad situation worse. Don't forget that despite what has gone before his ex reported a chance encounter as a breach of conditions knowing full well what the results would be. Barring him from pubs was a master stroke as well. What, he can't drink at home or something? All it did was exclude him from company probably when he needed it most. I'm not into "blamestorming" but the way he has been treated is so clearly inadequate someone, somewhere, should be asking why is it that those who need protecting from themselves are treated as criminals instead? The real issue is, rightly or wrongly, (though remember, rightly, in the judgement of the court) that there is an order in place and he broke it. Separating and getting divorced is one thing, but breaching the law always brings in another dimension. What do we do? - throw resources at every couple separating and getting divorced in the liklihood that things could go too far in all cases? Surely there has to be a level of individual responsibility (often backed up by a network of friends and family) when it comes to people obtaining help for themselves, and certainly for behaving within the law. Green eyed monsters, anger, hitting the booze or even ideas of revenge, are not about dealing with things. The reality is that when you get separated and divorced you are either on your own, or can rely on friends and family to help you deal with it, and who can often advise you to get help if you need it. But first you have to realise you need to be helped. As for the outcome so far, I would say he has been 'let down' by his friends and family, though I would suspect much of that is actually down to his own attitude. There is help available such as 'Relate', as well as numerous counsellors etc. - even if some of them may operate in the private sector, and I'm sure that if he had really identified the need for, and wanted to quickly find such help he could have done so. But as far as the law was concerned IMO, this problem quickly escalated under an existing (prior assessed) order and there was simply no time inbetween offences - counselling required to deal with such issues and get over them (never mind the underlying causes) can take many months or even years - not usually the realtively short period over which all this has happended. He may well have been effectively excluded 'from company probably when he needed it most' - but the fact of the matter was, that environment was a major cause of some of the problems, hence that exclusion. If someone decides to leave you for whatever reason (or even none), they have rights to live away from you and to do so in peace, but where children are concerned you too, and they, have rights - so there always has to be compromise. The sooner you realise you have to go through a grief process and deal with the compromise of the children being associated with two homes, and often eventually with 4 people, and you realise the psychological damage that can be caused to your children by not dealing with things properly - the better chance you have of coming out of it all in the best possible position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Once again an excellent post Albert, well done. I suspect there's some personal experience in there? Compared to what exactly? If I could be arsed I'm sure I could compile a list of every political and financial scandal and cock up that's happened in the UK over the last decade. So why do you, smugly sitting there in your two houses with a great job and dinner at the Tate, feel the constant need to berate the IOM when it's little different to the wonderful UK? Then don't read my posts, simple as. However I'll think you'll find people like Roly Drower, GC Construction etc etc would agree that MHK's, the justice system and so forth are not exactly leading lights. That's not my fault by the way.... The state of the UK or anywhere else is not my fault either. Tell you what, I think the political and justice systems on the IOM are a lot better than those of Zimbabwe. Feel better now? Good, I'm happy for you. His mum lives just around the corner from where I am right now. If he comes over you never know, I might bump into him in the local. I'm sure your company will prove a great comfort to him. Do you really think so? Oh good, because you know how I value your opinion. However I suspect that the sympathy I currently feel for him may well vanish in the great man's presence. I do wonder if he or his ex read forums like this though. It'll be interesting to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Ah I'm not so lazy after all. First one I found. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/isle-of-man-busi...D-AND.439526.jp Thanks ans. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understood it British Citizens cannot be deported from IoM - though can voluntarily agree to be bound over to not return to the territory - but this is by agreement - not something than can be imposed. Some of the issues were dealt with in relation to deportation from Jersey - EU Nationals can be deported, but not British Citizens. Perhaps the case you link to where Moore was banned involved an agreement to be bound over or perhaps he was Irish and not a British citizen. However Kershaw is Brit - hence it seems a bit iffy to suggest he might be banned from the Island without his agreeing to be bound over to this. BTW I'm not against the idea of banning troublemaking Brits. It just it seems that this is not within the limits of what can be done and this seems to be a matter that Westminster decides and imposes on IoM by Orders in Council, and not something which is up to Tynwald (or even a High Bailiff). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 The state of the UK ... is not my fault And yet you seem to think the state of the IOM is our fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.