thebees Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 It makes me really mad, a single parent scams £250.00 from the DHSS and aside from having to pay it back they get a criminal record to boot - these types of wealthy people claim grants and when they get caught upto no go...what? NOTHING, grrr grrr grrr. Edit - Gosh really sorry ans - really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 They also get prosicuted within a couple of weeks and go to prison. Allan Bell was asked in Tynwald if the Government were paying Neds Legal bills to which he replied, If we are Im not aware of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Allan Bell was asked in Tynwald if the Government were paying Neds Legal bills to which he replied, If we are Im not aware of it. Well that doesn't fill me with confidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 So I guess she told him they were paid and the butler signed them as paid. Like I said all complete and utter bull. I blame the parents ... Butlers? Parents? What on earth are you whittering on about? all complete and utter bull. You said it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I shouldn't have to remind everyone about discussing cases that have yet to be tried and presenting allegations as factual.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 They also get prosicuted within a couple of weeks and go to prison. If there's evidence to support a prosecution, then likely a prosecution will follow. If the court convicts on the basis of that evidence, an appropriate sentence gets imposed. If there's no or insufficient evidence, there'll possibly be no prosection and probably no conviction. Without a conviction, no-one goes to prison. In FACT, they won't even fine you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Sure, he's a public figure. But his choice of defence is his private business. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He has registered Dickinson, Cruickshank & Co (Geof Karran) as his Advocates with the Courts, who are also the Governments Advocates. The government has nothing to do with the civil case. Assuming Dickinsons have nowt to do with the DTL grants scheme or any investigation into that scheme by the government (i.e. a conflict of interest), what is to stop them, or any other firm of advocates which does work for the government, from representing any member or government (or the public sector) in a private capacity? Dickinsons are not THE Govt Advocates. They are one of at least five firms of advocates which do work for the various arms of goverment (and its statutory boards, such as the MEA and FSC). And there is a Government Advocate within the Attorney General's chambers, but he'd be likely see himself as conflcited if advice was provided in relation to the DTL scheme or if he's advised on any issue relating to a prospective prosecution (actual conflict situations) or if it was felt that there may be a perception that there was a conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 And there is a Government Advocate within the Attorney General's chambers, but he'd be likely see himself as conflcited if advice was provided in relation to the DTL scheme or if he's advised on any issue relating to a prospective prosecution (actual conflict situations) or if it was felt that there may be a perception that there was a conflict. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Erm, Ian, HOW long have you lived on the Island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Sure, he's a public figure. But his choice of defence is his private business. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He has registered Dickinson, Cruickshank & Co (Geof Karran) as his Advocates with the Courts, who are also the Governments Advocates. The government has nothing to do with the civil case. Assuming Dickinsons have nowt to do with the DTL grants scheme or any investigation into that scheme by the government (i.e. a conflict of interest), what is to stop them, or any other firm of advocates which does work for the government, from representing any member or government (or the public sector) in a private capacity? Dickinsons are not THE Govt Advocates. They are one of at least five firms of advocates which do work for the various arms of goverment (and its statutory boards, such as the MEA and FSC). And there is a Government Advocate within the Attorney General's chambers, but he'd be likely see himself as conflcited if advice was provided in relation to the DTL scheme or if he's advised on any issue relating to a prospective prosecution (actual conflict situations) or if it was felt that there may be a perception that there was a conflict. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dickinsons were acting for the DTL at the Tynwald sellect hearing into Grants paid to Ned. They also acted for the DTL when the Builders took them to court to obtain the information that Ned had been paid grants. .... According to the Deeds office the same Advocate acted for one of the the Builders as well as Ned on property deals, so to me its a conflict of interest if the Advocate knows the finacial affairs of both parties. edited by declan - see Happy Camper's post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 According to the Deeds office the same Advocate acted for one of the the Builders as well as Ned on property deals, so to me its a conflict of interest if the Advocate knows the finacial affairs of both parties. It is not a conflict of interest if an Advocate has acted for both parties at separate times and on different issues. Just because you have once acted for a particular party, that does not mean you cannot act for anyone associated to them in a separate issue. Think about it, on an island as small and incestuous (figuratively speaking) such as this, if you applied those rules Advocates would soon be unable to act for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 It seems that my last post has been deleted, what for I dont Know. The answers that were posted are something that I should know about, as we are the ones that have taken the legal action against the Neds and also the ones that have attended all the court hearings as well as the Tynwald debates. Its all in Hansards anyway, so be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 I deleted all the posts that referred to a reported post - the thread was off thread at that point anyway. Feel free to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Getting back on thread. We will not be in court on Monday 28/2/05 as Neds Advocates have asked for a delay of six weeks as they are not ready, this is what they said last December too. Thats the Local legal system for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Deemsters/judges etc are supposed to get particularly annoyed with constant delays. Maybe it will work in your favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Deemsters/judges etc are supposed to get particularly annoyed with constant delays. Maybe it will work in your favour? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Two years ago Mrs Ned said that we would never get her in court, her pockets are deeper than ours, Im beginning to wonder if she,s right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.