Mr Helmut Fromage Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 21 minutes ago, Bosley said: Yes they lazily enacted emergency legislation originally drafted in 1938 and somehow thought it was acceptable to treat us like it was 80 odd years ago. No initial thought of a fixed penalty system or anything else. Sorry the AGs Office, Cabinet Office and Tynwald were 100% responsible for that and the border control that followed. They created the framework which saw 94 people left with life long criminal convictions and 72 with prison records on their file. For being on the Comin that passed that alone Ashford should hang his head in eternal shame. Good start to your MF existence but didn’t take long to out yourself as a Cuntney Headcase fan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helmut Fromage Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Bosley said: Double post Edited July 22 by Mr Helmut Fromage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 51 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Does that mean that there are sentencing guidelines, but that the IoM judiciary always go for the max.? There weren’t ever any sentencing guidelines, either in UK or England for COVID. It’s well known that IoM cracks down on drunkenness offences, and the new licensing act makes things worse. As for drugs, ioM drugs sentencing has always been much harsher. 11 minutes ago, Gladys said: Did the UK regulations include imprisonment or just on the spot fines and did the imposition of a fine result in a criminal record in the UK? UK regulations included both prison, court fines, and fixed penalties. And, yes, fines or fixed penalties are on your criminal record. 19 minutes ago, Bosley said: No initial thought of a fixed penalty system or anything else IoM didn’t have the necessary legislation apart from motoring offences. 19 minutes ago, Bosley said: 94 people left with life long criminal convictions and 72 with prison records on their file I agree. But with one, or two, notable, exceptions, they’d all had warnings, been spoken to, were repeat breachers-before being charged. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 14 minutes ago, John Wright said: There weren’t ever any sentencing guidelines, either in UK or England for COVID. It’s well known that IoM cracks down on drunkenness offences, and the new licensing act makes things worse. As for drugs, ioM drugs sentencing has always been much harsher. UK regulations included both prison, court fines, and fixed penalties. And, yes, fines or fixed penalties are on your criminal record. IoM didn’t have the necessary legislation apart from motoring offences. I agree. But with one, or two, notable, exceptions, they’d all had warnings, been spoken to, were repeat breachers-before being charged. So, really, DA's reflections are based on an inaccurate recollection and people were not subject to disproportionate measures or extraordinary criminal records here. He is also worriting about drug dealing on the streets of our housing estates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said: Double post You’re obviously drunk. Edited July 22 by Bosley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 41 minutes ago, Gladys said: people were not subject to disproportionate measures or extraordinary criminal records here Nowhere did I say or imply that. It's really difficult. IoM has legislative and judicial independence from UK in these matters. That means that Tynwald has the right to pass its own emergency regulations and set different sentencing parameters. It also means the judiciary has the right, subject to appeal, to decide where in those parameters to sentence. we had a very different ( and quite successful ) border policy, that depended on restricting entrants, isolation, and, in the short lockdown periods, strict enforcement of movement and household mixing. That in itself might be used to justify what happened. Take drug driving, our statutory minimum penalty is twice that of England. im not justifying, or criticising. I’m trying to set out the pragmatic operation of our lawmaking and enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 2 hours ago, Bosley said: Yes they lazily enacted emergency legislation originally drafted in 1938 and somehow thought it was acceptable to treat us like it was 80 odd years ago. No initial thought of a fixed penalty system or anything else. Sorry the AGs Office, Cabinet Office and Tynwald were 100% responsible for that and the border control that followed. They created the framework which saw 94 people left with life long criminal convictions and 72 with prison records on their file. For being on the Comin that passed that alone Ashford should hang his head in eternal shame. There were 94 people who were tried and convicted for breaking the rules. That's not the fault of the AGs Office, the Cabinet Office nor of Tynwald. It's entirely the fault of the 94 individuals themselves and nobody else... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 4 hours ago, John Wright said: Nowhere did I say or imply that. It's really difficult. IoM has legislative and judicial independence from UK in these matters. That means that Tynwald has the right to pass its own emergency regulations and set different sentencing parameters. It also means the judiciary has the right, subject to appeal, to decide where in those parameters to sentence. we had a very different ( and quite successful ) border policy, that depended on restricting entrants, isolation, and, in the short lockdown periods, strict enforcement of movement and household mixing. That in itself might be used to justify what happened. Take drug driving, our statutory minimum penalty is twice that of England. im not justifying, or criticising. I’m trying to set out the pragmatic operation of our lawmaking and enforcement. No, I was coming to my own conclusion as:- a) the imposition of a prison sentence was also part of the regulations in the UK; b) people who were given on the spot fines in the UK also had a criminal record; and c) you pointed out that most who got prison sentences were repeat offenders. It is really difficult to look back at that time, albeit so recent, and remember what the mindset (both personally and generally) was at the time to come to an objective assessment. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 7 hours ago, P.K. said: There were 94 people who were tried and convicted for breaking the rules. That's not the fault of the AGs Office, the Cabinet Office nor of Tynwald. It's entirely the fault of the 94 individuals themselves and nobody else... You’re clearly an idiot fella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Pretty mad that people can look back and think, yeah, that was the right thing to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 14 hours ago, cissolt said: We also have the double standards based on class when it came to prison sentences. The visiting welders were sent to prison, but the care home boses from jersey didn't even get a talking to. Because they had already left the island Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 11 hours ago, Bosley said: Yes they lazily enacted emergency legislation originally drafted in 1938 and somehow thought it was acceptable to treat us like it was 80 odd years ago. No initial thought of a fixed penalty system or anything else. Sorry the AGs Office, Cabinet Office and Tynwald were 100% responsible for that and the border control that followed. They created the framework which saw 94 people left with life long criminal convictions and 72 with prison records on their file. For being on the Comin that passed that alone Ashford should hang his head in eternal shame. To be fair out of those 94 probably 93 already had a long list of convictions 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 6 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: To be fair out of those 94 probably 93 already had a long list of convictions Really so the woman escaping a domestic incident already had a conviction? As did the woman buying fuel after getting off the boat? Or the men who came over for the railways and who went to Tescos? Or the bloke who sold a lamp on Facebook? They were all already convicted criminals for other matters? You’re talking through your arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 10 minutes ago, Bosley said: Really so the woman escaping a domestic incident already had a conviction? As did the woman buying fuel after getting off the boat? Or the men who came over for the railways and who went to Tescos? Or the bloke who sold a lamp on Facebook? They were all already convicted criminals for other matters? You’re talking through your arse. You'd be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 1 hour ago, TheTeapot said: Pretty mad that people can look back and think, yeah, that was the right thing to do. Not sure I am saying that. What I am asking is whether the sentences and resulting criminal records were disproportionate or out of kilter with what was necessary or what our neighbours were doing AT THE TIME. It is a very difficult one to look back through a contemporary lense, with bundles of hindsight, rather than what the situation and threat was at the time. But it does deserve a review as to whether the criminal records should stand in each case. Whether that would have to involve a pardon, or overturning the original conviction with the possibility of some claim for unlawful detention, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.