IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[0bserver]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Interestingly the Supreme Court of the UK, the same judges who make up the IoM final court of appeal ( Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ) has just decided that it’s an infringement of the right to privacy for anyone suspected of, or being investigated for, an offence to publicly name that person before charge. So, in theory, no more leaks by police or prosecutors, no more naming stories in the UK press.

Would that include appeals by the police where they say "We're looking for Joe Bloggs on suspicion of..."?

[John Wright]

28 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Would that include appeals by the police where they say "We're looking for Joe Bloggs on suspicion of..."?

Well, now, that is interesting.

The case may become interpreted on its facts. Limited in operation.

This was someone in a regulated environment, who was never prosecuted in the end. But the naming caused problems.

That spills over to FSA notices naming individuals, as well, possibly.

But really it doesn’t apply to publication of official notices or police requests. Just to the press publishing unofficially/leaked information.

 

[Gladys]

24 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Would that include appeals by the police where they say "We're looking for Joe Bloggs on suspicion of..."?

But they don't often do they?  "In connection with an incident" or "they have jumped bail" (which will be self-evident). 

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But they don't often do they?  "In connection with an incident" or "they have jumped bail" (which will be self-evident). 

Think it’s more often than you think. 

[hissingsid]

Sorry John I agree it does not do to discuss too deeply it is just so unusual I apologise and withdraw any comments I have made.   I would take the posts down but don’t know how to do this.

[Gladys]

33 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

To make it clear, I do support no naming, or identifying, until after conviction. 

I agree for some matters, such as sex offences.  But how do you square no-naming until conviction with an open legal system?  Perhaps no press reporting but still have court lists and open proceedings? 

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

I agree for some matters, such as sex offences.  But how do you square no-naming until conviction with an open legal system?  Perhaps no press reporting but still have court lists and open proceedings? 

We already have it for juveniles. You can report but not name or identify. It’s the press, and prejudice caused by wide spread reporting  it’s aimed at, not open justice.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Think it’s more often than you think. 

I was trying to think of an example, but theonly ones I could think of were "in connection with an incident".  The other examples that sprang to mind were grainy pictures of someone who the police want to speak to about an unspecified incident 6 months ago. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

We already have it for juveniles. You can report but not name or identify. It’s the press, and prejudice caused by wide spread reporting  it’s aimed at, not open justice.

Fair point, but the public can still turn up to the proceedings? 

[ManxTaxPayer]

12 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

 I would take the posts down but don’t know how to do this.

Try editing them. 

[hissingsid]

I think I will leave well alone before I cause any more trouble.

[John Wright]

43 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Sorry John I agree it does not do to discuss too deeply it is just so unusual I apologise and withdraw any comments I have made.   I would take the posts down but don’t know how to do this.

 

30 minutes ago, ManxTaxPayer said:

Try editing them. 

 

26 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

I think I will leave well alone before I cause any more trouble.

They didn’t cross the line. It was just opportune to remind posters

[buncha wankas]

On 2/17/2022 at 8:03 PM, offshoremanxman said:

No I get that thanks the above is really helpful. I really do think it’s unfair to name people before they’ve been convicted of anything especially here where in the last 10 years it seems to be a lottery. The Abbotswood case was a disgrace as Chris Robertshaw pointed out in his recent broadcast. You get the impression that they’re looking for people to publicly hang not to follow due process. 

And yet the new CEO is just as bad and was behind the Abbotswood witch hunt. 

[cissolt]

13 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

And yet the new CEO is just as bad and was behind the Abbotswood witch hunt. 

Oh FFS really? Lawrie hooper sat on a these pac hearings and is still praising this person's appointment

[buncha wankas]

5 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=65872

Mr Segal said that in 29 years doing his job it was the closest he had come to saying a respondent has not complied with disclosure.

Quite interesting as he was talking about Malone who was the Dept interim CEO responsible for ‘not hiding documents’ until it suited them to find them mid trial.  New CEO seems to have integrity of a …….