IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Ramseyboi]

Today’s case numbers will be interesting.

Literally everyone today seems to know someone or even lots of people who have done a positive in the last 48 hours.

[Phillip Dearden]

14 hours ago, Paulos The Great said:

And what would be so terrible about allowing someone to do that? It seems to me the decisions made by civil servants were purely arbitrary and there was no sense checking or oversight process. And probably because his emails got a bit arsey questioning the logic they simply blew him out which is why he took it to court. 

How were they arbitrary?

At the time, he could only enter if he was resident. "Resident" is not clearly defined but there are lots of old cases and they all revolve around the place you live. His IOM house was rented out so he could not live there. On what basis could he be IOM resident?

I think the officers were very diplomatic. I can understand why Mr B was a bit upset but there was a world-wide pandemic going on which all administrations were struggling to cope with and a lot of us were inconvenienced.

If he had got to he house and occupied it, post-tenancy, he would then be living in a home he owned in the Isle of Man and would have a good case for being IOM resident. Whilst this seems an attractive way forward, was it achievable? I think he could not enter the IOM until he was living in the IOM property and so he could not achieve resident status. My reading is that Deemster Corlett was sympathetic that this point was not addressed and thus gave Mr B the benefit of the doubt. To my non-legal trained mind this seems a very generous interpretation.

 

 

[Phillip Dearden]

6 hours ago, John Wright said:

What that boils down to is that if he had waited until after 14/2 and the tenants had moved out, and he had then wanted to move back, with his wife and children, and applied then, he’d have been fine.

He had already decided to sell, way back in November.

But would he?

He would own an IOM property and might intend to live in it indefinitely so it would become his home and he would become IOM resident.

However, when does it become his home? When it is available, when he decides it will now be his home or when he commences to live in it? I don't think that this is clear, especially for the Covid-Regs. However, my tentative suggestion, based on tax-cases, is that the property would become his home when he commenced living in it, which would mean it was not his home when he was travelling, so he could not enter the IOM, so he could not become resident....

This interpretation does seem harsh but I think we are talking about a relieving provision which removes a ban on coming to the Island for people who already live here, not a relief for people who are going to live here or who intend to live here or who want to live here ie it is for current residents. 

This is just a tentative view, I am far from certain on it.

 

[Paulos The Great]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

But oversight and review by whom?  The CS is accountable for his decisions as shown by this case, he has to have come to a decision in a reasonable manner. 

Accountable at the time and a higher level more independent body overseeing decisions where cases could be referred to at the time. Cases like this are pointless a year later just to prove a point and the point seems to be they were wrong as upheld by the Deemster. 

[Gladys]

31 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

But would he?

He would own an IOM property and might intend to live in it indefinitely so it would become his home and he would become IOM resident.

However, when does it become his home? When it is available, when he decides it will now be his home or when he commences to live in it? I don't think that this is clear, especially for the Covid-Regs. However, my tentative suggestion, based on tax-cases, is that the property would become his home when he commenced living in it, which would mean it was not his home when he was travelling, so he could not enter the IOM, so he could not become resident....

This interpretation does seem harsh but I think we are talking about a relieving provision which removes a ban on coming to the Island for people who already live here, not a relief for people who are going to live here or who intend to live here or who want to live here ie it is for current residents. 

This is just a tentative view, I am far from certain on it.

 

There was quite a bit of gossip about people buying properties to avoid the greater restrictions of where they lived.  Presumably, the view taken was that they could travel here to take up residence in their newly purchased property as they had indicated a desire to make it their principal place of residence.  

The defining point in this, I think, is that the property was not available to him when he planned to travel and he clearly said he had no intention of occupying it as he wanted to sell it.  Therefore, on no ordinary basis could it be said that he was returning to take up residency. 

The regs are pretty clear, possibly usefully allowing a value based judgement by saying that the CS is satisfied that in fact the person is resident and by that the ordinary meaning of the word.  He had no intention of becoming resident. 

Tax residency differs because the intention is to catch people as tax resident when they would argue they aren't, despite clearly having put down the local connections, family, schooling, membership of clubs, newspaper orders from a local newsagent, etc.  Despite being asked to give evidence of his residency, he didn't and he didn't have a residence to live in, you just can't get away from that fact.

[Gladys]

43 minutes ago, Paulos The Great said:

Accountable at the time and a higher level more independent body overseeing decisions where cases could be referred to at the time. Cases like this are pointless a year later just to prove a point and the point seems to be they were wrong as upheld by the Deemster. 

Or look at it another way, what hardship did he suffer?  His property sale still went through and arrangements were made for his personal belongings.  He clearly said that the purpose of returning was not to take up residency, so he was not denied that option - he didn't want it. 

[Annoymouse]

5 hours ago, Ramseyboi said:

Exactly.  People can be out in as little as 3 days so our approach seems much more sensible

Depends what side of the fence you sit, as you said test positive on day 1, get someone else to do a salvia swab for day 2/3, day 3 you can be out.

Handy for people who want to record the fact they’ve had Covid but don’t want to be stuck inside for 10 days.

[Paulos The Great]

31 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Or look at it another way, what hardship did he suffer?  

The Deemster makes it clear in his ruling that the hardship he suffered was that his human rights had been interfered with: 

“I consider that the failure by the Cabinet Office to engage with Mr Bayley on this issue has led to him arguably being deprived of “the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” in terms of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into Isle of Man law by the Human Rights Act 2001”

[Danoo]

22 minutes ago, Paulos The Great said:

The Deemster makes it clear in his ruling that the hardship he suffered was that his human rights had been interfered with: 

“I consider that the failure by the Cabinet Office to engage with Mr Bayley on this issue has led to him arguably being deprived of “the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” in terms of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into Isle of Man law by the Human Rights Act 2001”

Nice to see reference to human rights being acknowledged. I'm sure it will come up again in other contexts in the not too distant future. 

[Ramseyboi]

1 hour ago, Annoymouse said:

Depends what side of the fence you sit, as you said test positive on day 1, get someone else to do a salvia swab for day 2/3, day 3 you can be out.

Handy for people who want to record the fact they’ve had Covid but don’t want to be stuck inside for 10 days.

I was meaning more the people who legitimately produce negative only a day or so after a positive who would have previously had to stay home for ten days for no good reason.

[Paulos The Great]

19 minutes ago, Danoo said:

Nice to see reference to human rights being acknowledged. I'm sure it will come up again in other contexts in the not too distant future. 

Yes I agree I know a few people who were very upset about some of the arbitrary decisions made and the lack of any ability to have them challenged or reviewed. A few MHKs got dragged in to some of these situations I believe and were told there was little they could do. 

[Annoymouse]

33 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

I was meaning more the people who legitimately produce negative only a day or so after a positive who would have previously had to stay home for ten days for no good reason.

I think a common sense approach needs to be applied, If you have symptoms you should stay at home (or certainly make every effort to stay away from others wherever possible) LFTs can’t really be relied on. I know someone who had all the symptoms and it took 6 days for them to show positive on an LFT test (ironically when they were starting to feel much improved) and they were still showing positive 2 weeks later despite having not symptoms whatsoever.

[Happier diner]

6 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

I think a common sense approach needs to be applied, If you have symptoms you should stay at home (or certainly make every effort to stay away from others wherever possible) LFTs can’t really be relied on. I know someone who had all the symptoms and it took 6 days for them to show positive on an LFT test (ironically when they were starting to feel much improved) and they were still showing positive 2 weeks later despite having not symptoms whatsoever.

I think you will find that if the swab is taken correctly then the LFTs are incredibly reliable. Much more so than relying on symptoms. It's possible to have symptoms but not be infectious. However if the LFT picks up antigens in your nose you are almost certain to be infectious.

[Danoo]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

I think you will find that if the swab is taken correctly then the LFTs are incredibly reliable. Much more so than relying on symptoms. It's possible to have symptoms but not be infectious. However if the LFT picks up antigens in your nose you are almost certain to be infectious.

It's also possible just to have a run of the mill, old fashioned cold. They do still exist. No need to keep using an LFT every day you have a slight sniffle. 

[traficvanforsale]

What does a faint positive line mean then? i know its positive but why is it faint?