Attorney General Retires On Grounds Of Ill Health

[offshoremanxman]

4 hours ago, Quizzical said:

Any more information on this @Truthsayer? It sounds extremely serious. Any idea when it might become public?

If you’ve something to say then say it rather than set up two new accounts talking in riddles that people largely seem to have ignored.

[Quizzical]

Thank you for the warm welcome to Manx Forums.

It was actually the fact that this subject had been largely ignored which prompted me to join and post. I've been a long time reader of the forums, but have stayed away from posting due to often unpleasant and unnecessarily derogatory and confrontational attitudes displayed.

However, the post from @Truthsayer that I originally quoted caught my attention as it fits with a rumour I've heard about staffing issues within the AG's Chambers. I waited a few days after it was posted to see if anyone else would add anything or if the OP would add more detail.

When that didn't happen, I joined purely to see if there was any additional information and whether that post referred to the same situation as the one I have been made aware of.

It seemed like a pragmatic and balanced way of engaging.

Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable sharing more details of the rumour I have heard as it could be untrue and the nature of the allegations, if repeated here without proof, would leave me (and potentially the forum?) open to libel action. From even the briefest details, individuals are clearly identifiable and the claims would reduce their standing in the mind of any right-thinking person. And I have no proof. None.

That's really why I wanted to here more from the OP, or others, as it would come as a great relief if the story is about to be made public and the appropriate action taken.

I know realise that taking an interest in a post on a public forum and attempting to join the conversation, to try and learn more, was an unforgiveable error and an insult to all users. I can only apologise to you all, and especially to you @offshoremanxman for any distress.  

[Declan]

1 hour ago, Quizzical said:

I know realise that taking an interest in a post on a public forum and attempting to join the conversation, to try and learn more, was an unforgiveable error and an insult to all users. I can only apologise to you all, and especially to you @offshoremanxman for any distress.  

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/ignore/

[Roger Mexico]

I'm afraid that in the past certain banned or suspended members have tended to create a load of new aliases to spam the site with insults and insinuations.  When a couple of new members post close together some excitable people think this is the same phenomenon, even though the posting style is different.  (That's an explanation not an excuse).

To get back to the topic, the only problem with revelations about legal matters on the Isle of Man is that we frequently never hear about them.  This is partly fear that the legal establishment, inside and outside government, might get offended if incompetence or illegalities are exposed.  But also because such matters are often complicated to understand and explain and reporting of matters such as court cases is very heavy on the time of journalists involved. 

I've recently pointed out on here to a long court case with jury that seems to have gone completely unreported and to an appeal to the privy Council that meant a murder trial has to be rerun.  I suspect neither would show the AG's Office in a good light, but we'll probably never know the details.

So unless it's very dramatic like the Ranson case, such stuff gets ignored - and I wonder how much of that we would know about if Moulton hadn't been so dogged, which led to others covering it too.  Certainly other tribunals tended to get underreported even though employment tribunals tend to get better coverage that other judicial proceedings when they publish their decisions.  The comprehensive nature of those documents make it easy to tell the whole story without ever having sat through the case.

[Quizzical]

Couldn't agree more. Lack of media resources, experience, and knowledge means a number of issues go unreported, plus, as you say, there is a fear in a small community like this of rocking the boat.

The post by @Truthsayer, which I acknowledge could be nonsense, refers to matters some six years ago. It is difficult, especially in a small community, to suppress the truth forever, so I had hoped this might signal that some light was about to be cast on what was, if true, a very dark moment in Manx legal history.

I'm well aware of the wild speculation, spinning rumour mill, and wilful misinterpretation of entirely innocent situations that makes the Isle of Man what it is, so I have treated what I was told with a pinch of salt, but never entirely dismissed it. As mentioned previously, my sole reason for joining the forum and posting was to see whether there was any commonality between what @Truthsayer claimed to know about and what I have heard.

Given their silence since posting, it's probably fair to conclude there was nothing to it, or at least nothing they are currently able to put into the public forum. So perhaps what I was told was untrue and deliberately scurrilous.

[piebaps]

6 minutes ago, Quizzical said:

As mentioned previously, my sole reason for joining the forum and posting was to see whether there was any commonality between what @Truthsayer claimed to know about and what I have heard.

Why not drop truthsayer a private message? You could arrange to meet up and slander/libel people in privacy.

 

[Quizzical]

15 minutes ago, piebaps said:

Why not drop truthsayer a private message? You could arrange to meet up and slander/libel people in privacy.

 

That's a great suggestion, thanks. Should have thought about that before posting anything and apparently becoming something of a McMurphy in this asylum.

[offshoremanxman]

3 hours ago, Quizzical said:

That's really why I wanted to here more from the OP, or others, as it would come as a great relief if the story is about to be made public and the appropriate action taken.

I know realise that taking an interest in a post on a public forum and attempting to join the conversation, to try and learn more, was an unforgiveable error and an insult to all users. I can only apologise to you all, and especially to you @offshoremanxman for any distress.  

Yes but your post is an absolute riddle so notwithstanding your comments what’s the actual point of setting up an account and making a post if you don’t feel comfortable sharing a rumour? That’s basically what this forum is most of the time people sharing rumours. 

[Truthsayer]

1 hour ago, Quizzical said:

Couldn't agree more. Lack of media resources, experience, and knowledge means a number of issues go unreported, plus, as you say, there is a fear in a small community like this of rocking the boat.

The post by @Truthsayer, which I acknowledge could be nonsense, refers to matters some six years ago. It is difficult, especially in a small community, to suppress the truth forever, so I had hoped this might signal that some light was about to be cast on what was, if true, a very dark moment in Manx legal history.

I'm well aware of the wild speculation, spinning rumour mill, and wilful misinterpretation of entirely innocent situations that makes the Isle of Man what it is, so I have treated what I was told with a pinch of salt, but never entirely dismissed it. As mentioned previously, my sole reason for joining the forum and posting was to see whether there was any commonality between what @Truthsayer claimed to know about and what I have heard.

Given their silence since posting, it's probably fair to conclude there was nothing to it, or at least nothing they are currently able to put into the public forum. So perhaps what I was told was untrue and deliberately scurrilous.

All will be clear when judge Corlett gives a judgment tomorrow, 11 May. No doubt it’ll be put on the judgments.im website as well.

[Quizzical]

40 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

That’s basically what this forum is most of the time people sharing rumours. 

Well, that and members disappearing down a rabbit hole of their own indignation if anyone proffers a differing opinion or posts in a way that they wouldn't. Sometimes it seems members are less interested in the topic and more concerned about the format and structure of the post.

Oh, and name calling and cheap shot scoring.

I say this with love, of course, as a longstanding visitor to, and fan of, the forum.

[Quizzical]

22 minutes ago, Truthsayer said:

All will be clear when judge Corlett gives a judgment tomorrow, 11 May. No doubt it’ll be put on the judgments.im website as well.

Thank you for clarifying. I hope the judgment makes it to the website - not all do, and the basis for selection is unclear. 

[offshoremanxman]

1 hour ago, Quizzical said:

Well, that and members disappearing down a rabbit hole of their own indignation if anyone proffers a differing opinion or posts in a way that they wouldn't. Sometimes it seems members are less interested in the topic and more concerned about the format and structure of the post.

Oh, and name calling and cheap shot scoring.

I say this with love, of course, as a longstanding visitor to, and fan of, the forum.

You learned all that in 2 days 😂

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

You learned all that in 2 days 😂

He/she has stated they have been a long time reader of this forum 

[NoTailT]

50 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

He/she has stated they have been a long time reader of this forum 

Good job our welcome committee made he/she/them feel so welcome.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

Good job our welcome committee made he/she/them feel so welcome.

But it is interesting to see how an old follower/ new member views this forum, whether or not you agree with their analysis.