Observer Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 As difficult as it is, it would be appreciated if we could avoid speculating on the potential chargable offence (or other). We are better off waiting until such time as it is announced or dropped. Until that time, we may inadvertently jeopardise a high profile case of local importance and further, place the future of the forum in doubt. Please be very careful what you post and stick to facts that are already in the public domain rather than speculative reasoning. Thank you in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 3. For the good of the IOM's reputation GE Construction dropped their claim to put an end to it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right. I'm sure that's the reason they decided not to try and prove their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 3. For the good of the IOM's reputation GE Construction dropped their claim to put an end to it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right. I'm sure that's the reason they decided not to try and prove their case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I seem to recall that's what the piece said. So by all means deploy your sarcasm but please make it clear that it is directed at Manx Radio where it belongs. Now here's an idea to get hold of, if you don't believe it, why don't you ask them? Edited for continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 ooohh, feisty. it was aimed at the point itself, rather than who made it. As you clearly mentioned that it was via MR, I don't see the need for handbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 manxman8180, meet PK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 If GE did offer to drop it then in the light of recent events it makes the CM look very, very foolish. Friday pm. See you Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Oh, we've 'met' before...... ..Happy pubbing P.K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I have been watching this thread very closely, and postings have been made that are Libel and subjudice in an ongoing case. I have reported the offending postings. Also we have not dropped our legal case as some are saying. Fact We offered at the very start to have this dispute resolved by Arbitration, but that was refused. Also we have no idea what the police have arrested Mr & Mrs Corkill for, we are not involved with what ever it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 submitting invoices as paid when they were not = fraud Bullxxxx prove itforging a signature = fraud Bullxxxx prove it stealing tools = theft Matter settled <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 FMCR, if you look at the wording of the original post, he is not claiming that these events have occurred, he is pointing out that they are criminal offences. If he alleges that you have committed them, the post will be removed at once, but as he hasn't, there is no reason for the removal and hence there is no libel. If you don't want to have a subjudice discussion, perhaps you shouldn't initiate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 FMCR, if you look at the wording of the original post, he is not claiming that these events have occurred, he is pointing out that they are criminal offences. If he alleges that you have committed them, the post will be removed at once, but as he hasn't, there is no reason for the removal and hence there is no libel. If you don't want to have a subjudice discussion, perhaps you shouldn't initiate one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why was the credit card thingy edited out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Why are the Police involved ? Can anyone explain? Which part of the list of allegations (OG's post above) could/would be a criminal matter? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> submitting invoices as paid when they were not = fraudforging a signature = fraud stealing tools = theft <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The reply was based on what the police are aledged to be investigating and I dont believe they are investigating these items. Dont know anything about Item 2 Who posted about the credit cards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I just said they are offences. I never said anyone did them either, anyway you were the one who said all them things in the first place. whats more you accused someone of doing them too. reported yourself while you were at it did you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted December 3, 2004 Author Share Posted December 3, 2004 You can get permission provided they don't assess you as a flight risk. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Monday December 6th 2004 High courts of Justice in the Isle of Man. Court No 1 deemster Walk, Douglas. Cu Plas Callow V R k & J Corkill. The plaintiffs have not been notified that they (Corkills) have left the Island to go on Holiday, One good reason to get the case DELAYED Ans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 My spidey senses are telling me that all of a sudden FCMR would rather this wasn't being discussed on an internet forum. Kinda ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.