David in court

[Rhumsaa]

5 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Those people were IOM residents. Most of whom had been on holiday and didn’t get back in time. As Roger Mexico says it depends whether IOM had written the laws correctly to enforce the mandatory internment (which is exactly what it was) of its own people as a condition of returning and also the powers to charge them for their own internment. This looks like a civil case to get their money back. 

Yes I am fully aware of the circumstances

[Numbnuts]

I think from memory from convo with Geoff its got alot to do with things that were said or promised to him and wife in travelling back. Yes its a civil matter which I believe is alot more straight forward than other avenues.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Numbnuts

[Barlow]

2 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

I think from memory from convo with Geoff its got alot to do with things that were said or promised to him and wife in travelling back. Yes its a civil matter which I believe is alot more straight forward than other avenues.

This word 'alot'..what does it mean? In that, is it a secret message sort of things, used by certain types of people?

[Numbnuts]

1 hour ago, Barlow said:

This word 'alot'..what does it mean? In that, is it a secret message sort of things, used by certain types of people?

Nothing to read into it. Just my lack of education .

[Anyone]

It was not the IOM governments finest moment. Having said that Australia and New. Zealand did the same thing. As did other countries.

It’s ironic that what UK has being doing this year is too late ( ie pointless and trashing its tourist industry with stupid pre and post arrival tests and a passenger locator form that has questions that are hard to tathom ) whilst the rest of Europe make it easy to get in. But last year when the virus was rampant let any Tom , dick and Harry in with no tests or locator forms. I blame that Shapps idiot - he must be next for the chop.

It’s why Europe is full of foreign tourists and the UK is not. 

[Whatnonsence]

On 10/31/2021 at 1:53 PM, Barlow said:

On a not unrelated matter, with a bit of a queue jump,  Howard and Will are up in court tomorrow:

 

Anyone know the result of this case today?

[Numbnuts]

2 minutes ago, Whatnonsence said:

Anyone know the result of this case today?

Only a premilary hearing so not sure anything would be finalised just way forward I would have thought. Some on here will know better I'm sure .

[Whatnonsence]

1 hour ago, Numbnuts said:

Only a premilary hearing so not sure anything would be finalised just way forward I would have thought. Some on here will know better I'm sure .

Well spotted Numbnuts I missed reading that.

Great to see our local media are all over it like a rash gives you real confidence in our great democracy 

 

[Ringy Rose]

Goes to show that sometimes you can't win. The likes of Dr Ranson were screaming blue murder that we didn't lock the borders two weeks before we did, and those who got caught out screamed blue murder that they couldn't come back.

[Roger Mexico]

43 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I’m trying to think who out of the two would be the more supercilious. I’ve come to the conclusion that they may play off one another. I do hope so. 

[Transferring this over to the dedicated topic]

Actually as discussed on the this topic, because it's a civil case Ashford doesn't have to appear in person, though I suppose he could be summoned as a witness if the judge agreed.  Instead he'll be represented by a lawyer, presumably from the AG's Office.  And as you know lawyers are never supercilious.

There's a full day allocated, but it clashes with a Keys sitting and he'll probably use that as a excuse not to turn up in Court.  That and the fact it's bonkers.

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

[Transferring this over to the dedicated topic]

Actually as discussed on the this topic, because it's a civil case Ashford doesn't have to appear in person, though I suppose he could be summoned as a witness if the judge agreed.  Instead he'll be represented by a lawyer, presumably from the AG's Office.  And as you know lawyers are never supercilious.

There's a full day allocated, but it clashes with a Keys sitting and he'll probably use that as a excuse not to turn up in Court.  That and the fact it's bonkers.

Anyone got any good knitting patterns?

[Roger Mexico]

Mind you I don't know why Heading is bothering.  Surely he's won in the only valid court anyway?

[New Broom]

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Mind you I don't know why Heading is bothering.  Surely he's won in the only valid court anyway?

Hundreds of thousands of people Worldwide are waking-up to the outrageous corruption of our so-called legal system and the vast difference between what is rightfully lawful, and that which is declared legal. Many have become supporters of the growing common law movement. This support will become a tsunami.

Mock all you wish but the law is only as valid as the people’s willingness to accept it - as countless, now defunct, regimes have discovered. Statute ‘law’ is simply that - the principles of common law are sound, and understandable to all right-thinking people.

Whilst sometimes obsessive, Courtney ‘Headcase’ is not - as the questionable Mr Ashford is also likely to discover. Courtney has far more widespread support than many might imagine, including from some quiet island ‘heavyweights’. Few of his supporters are ‘anti-vax looney tunes’ but rather intelligent and concerned citizens who choose not to fall into line with a clearly corrupt agenda.

The ‘sneering’ and, being frank, bullying, that seems to be common practice in this forum shows few of the contributors in a favorable light. I cannot imagine many of you are so ‘courageously’ outspoken when not behind the safety of your keyboards. The intention of a forum is normally that views can be freely exchanged and discussed. Rather than cultivate this, the usual response here to any view that differs from that of the regulars seems to be as above. 

[Banker]

2 hours ago, New Broom said:

Hundreds of thousands of people Worldwide are waking-up to the outrageous corruption of our so-called legal system and the vast difference between what is rightfully lawful, and that which is declared legal. Many have become supporters of the growing common law movement. This support will become a tsunami.

Mock all you wish but the law is only as valid as the people’s willingness to accept it - as countless, now defunct, regimes have discovered. Statute ‘law’ is simply that - the principles of common law are sound, and understandable to all right-thinking people.

Whilst sometimes obsessive, Courtney ‘Headcase’ is not - as the questionable Mr Ashford is also likely to discover. Courtney has far more widespread support than many might imagine, including from some quiet island ‘heavyweights’. Few of his supporters are ‘anti-vax looney tunes’ but rather intelligent and concerned citizens who choose not to fall into line with a clearly corrupt agenda.

The ‘sneering’ and, being frank, bullying, that seems to be common practice in this forum shows few of the contributors in a favorable light. I cannot imagine many of you are so ‘courageously’ outspoken when not behind the safety of your keyboards. The intention of a forum is normally that views can be freely exchanged and discussed. Rather than cultivate this, the usual response here to any view that differs from that of the regulars seems to be as above. 

Thanks Courtney , but it’s still bollocks!

[Gladys]

10 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Mind you I don't know why Heading is bothering.  Surely he's won in the only valid court anyway?

Have they got the year wrong for that report?

Interestingly, no statement of the case against the defendants, or even argument as to how the decision was reached. Or even how the decision is to be effected. 

I thought it may be an interesting debating forum, because at most that is what it is.  But nothing.