Gladys Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 3 minutes ago, NoTailT said: Sorry I dont follow court stuff. Why would this all come about only after the subject had started giving evidence? Because perhaps that was when he, or his advocate, advised the court that he no longer had representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said: Well so you say, but have you any evidence or is it just part of your anti establishment stance? I am not saying you are wrong but your “ it never gained wheels because one party had dirt on the other” needs a bit more substance behind it if you are to be taken seriously. Well it wasn't me that said it but I know what it was about at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, finlo said: Well it wasn't me that said it but I know what it was about at the time. Well you may know what it was about but posting cryptic comments on here doesn’t help the rest of us. Have no idea what you’re talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, NoTailT said: Why doesn't everyone just ditch their advocate then during a trial? The case has not been dismissed, just aborted. He is still on bail. So it looks like there will be a return match, with all the additional cost to him that will involve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, Gladys said: The case has not been dismissed, just aborted. He is still on bail. So it looks like there will be a return match, with all the additional cost to him that will involve. Sorry for so many questions but you seem to obviously know the courts world. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 (edited) 56 minutes ago, NoTailT said: Sorry for so many questions but you seem to obviously know the courts world. Thanks. Not really. The sad thing is that what appears to be the justice machine working, even though we don't like the outcome, it suddenly becomes a conspiracy. The Deemster did indicate it was a difficult case, but was in the interests of fairness. Edited May 11 by Gladys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 12 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Well you may know what it was about but posting cryptic comments on here doesn’t help the rest of us. Have no idea what you’re talking about. You say you've been here 40 years yet you've no idea how the place operates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maverick Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 35 minutes ago, Two-lane said: I was not criticising the Deemster's decision. Scales was on the stand for some period of time. The questions he was asked and the responses he made are not reported. In a case of this significance I would expect there to be a news report. (And, generally speaking, I have no idea what day of the week it is) Maybe the minute your advocate declares that the documents are clearly forged then it cuts across the main defense that you had envisaged so he has had to be sacked? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 hour ago, finlo said: It never gained wheels because one party had dirt on the other. This would be the same VOR who was also trying to suggest that the MEA debacle had never happened, a couple of years ago on these boards.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: Well so you say, but have you any evidence or is it just part of your anti establishment stance? I am not saying you are wrong but your “ it never gained wheels because one party had dirt on the other” needs a bit more substance behind it if you are to be taken seriously. I don't give a toss whether you take it seriously or not, sometimes people are very close to the parties involved and don't wish to fill out their assertions. What I will say is a person close to one of the parties in that sorry saga said to me that one of the people involved had too much shade on parties in Government that an outcome largely passing over the matter would occur ! and it did ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 11 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: What on earth does that mean? it means you didn't keep up at the back. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 The only justification for not reporting what happened in court on Friday is that the Deemester imposed reporting restrictions. But, as far as I can understand things, the imposition of reporting restrictions involves making a public announcement about which trial, where and when. In which case I would expect the newspapers to report that. Journalists being nice and fair and doing what is best for society doesn't come into it. What would be the situation if this case, involving senior Government people, happened in England - or even, USA? I am not a serious conspiracy theorist in this case. I am simply curious to know what was said in court. [Note also that in this case, the restriction would have to be retrospective. A journalist could have taken note of Scales' earlier responses, but left court before the critical moment in the trial. Then what?] {Unless Scales took the stand, immediately said "You're fired", and it took until 15:00 for the Deemster to formally conclude that progress was impossible} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 9 minutes ago, Two-lane said: The only justification for not reporting what happened in court on Friday is that the Deemester imposed reporting restrictions. But, as far as I can understand things, the imposition of reporting restrictions involves making a public announcement about which trial, where and when. In which case I would expect the newspapers to report that. Journalists being nice and fair and doing what is best for society doesn't come into it. What would be the situation if this case, involving senior Government people, happened in England - or even, USA? I am not a serious conspiracy theorist in this case. I am simply curious to know what was said in court. [Note also that in this case, the restriction would have to be retrospective. A journalist could have taken note of Scales' earlier responses, but left court before the critical moment in the trial. Then what?] {Unless Scales took the stand, immediately said "You're fired", and it took until 15:00 for the Deemster to formally conclude that progress was impossible} The report said he had begun to give evidence. Clearly something went astray from that point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 36 minutes ago, NoTailT said: The report said he had begun to give evidence. Clearly something went astray from that point. Most likely shone a light where non should be shone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: The only justification for not reporting what happened in court on Friday is that the Deemester imposed reporting restrictions. But, as far as I can understand things, the imposition of reporting restrictions involves making a public announcement about which trial, where and when. In which case I would expect the newspapers to report that. Not really. The thing about reporting criminal cases is that it's more about what you are allowed to report than what you are banned from. Reporters are safe with anything said in open court and not explicitly restricted, but otherwise it can be seen as attempting to influence the trial, because it might be something the jury hasn't been allowed to see. In the case of an aborted trial when the public at large will contain the next set of jurors, that will then even include what has been said in open court because they shouldn't be influenced by what was said in the previous trial but might not be in this one. Obviously what has been published can't be stopped, but further coverage of unpublished information that came out in court might be viewed unfavourably. And potential jurors might be quizzed on whether they followed the previous trial. 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.