Roger Ram Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 I thought DBC had an in house It department and had done for years? Cant access email from off island? Blimey 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 35 minutes ago, FANDL said: Or a bit like the OCSIA point mentioned above. Do you believe the police were involved in anyway at all, or even contacted or called to investigate anything, as claimed by Mrs Wells in the newspapers at the time? It would be unfortunate if they weren’t when an attempt was made to discredit the complainant by trying to paint him as the subject of a police investigation which may turn out to be completely fictitious. Just like their likely non existent OCSIA investigation. I’ve no idea whether, or not, Ms Wells or DBC reported the spoof e-mail to the police. My recollection is that DBC did report the arrival of the bin in their reception. The removal of the bin and its depositing elsewhere may, or may not, fit the definition of theft, which is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it Moving the bin is an appropriation, the bin belonged to someone else, abandoning it probably meets the intention to permanently deprive*, so it’d be down to intention. Im just pointing out that it appears that whoever moved removed the bin to the Town Hall reception seems to have believed all sorts of things that may not have been true, and you now say he has some more beliefs, in which you say he seems confident. I’m just wondering about the likely correlation between belief and fact. It may well be that his belief, rational or not, that the bin belonged to DBC and then taking it to the town hall, is what saved him. * This means acting as owner, so not returning, abandoning, destroying all, might, fit the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 5 hours ago, FANDL said: If Mr Wheeler is to be believed, and he seems fairly confident, it’s suggested that this week via IOM newspapers we may find out.. Hopefully, then, we'll find out soon whether Mr [Redacted] is an absurd fantasist with the loosest possible grasp of reality, or a prescient campaigner for truth and justice. I'm not expressing an opinion either way here, in case this post shows up in evidence in some later review designed to waste even more time and taxpayers' money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 23 minutes ago, Sheldon said: Hopefully, then, we'll find out soon whether Mr [Redacted] is an absurd fantasist with the loosest possible grasp of reality, or a prescient campaigner for truth and justice. But if the man is or was an absurd fantasist how come the Ombudsman’s rather detailed and lengthy ruling by a lawyer who has been practicing some 40 odd years has found in his favour and it has been shown that DBC were in fact wrong to stop dealing with him as they failed to follow their own set internal policies? If he was a fantasist then surely the Ombudsman would have said that he had no case to answer and thrown it all out on the grounds that it was all pure fantasy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 9 minutes ago, FANDL said: But if the man is or was an absurd fantasist how come the Ombudsman’s rather detailed and lengthy ruling by a lawyer who has been practicing some 40 odd years has found in his favour and it has been shown that DBC were in fact wrong to stop dealing with him as they failed to follow their own set internal policies? If he was a fantasist then surely the Ombudsman would have said that he had no case to answer and thrown it all out on the grounds that it was all pure fantasy? The Ombudsman made no finding as to whether the complainant was correct in his beliefs about the bins. That wasn’t the subject of the reference to the Ombudsman. Indeed it would not have been within his powers. The ombudsman adjudicated as to whether DBC had applied its policy in a manner that complied with the policy and was fair, whether the policy had been communicated and whether there had been warnings and opportunity to make responsive representation. 1 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 12 minutes ago, FANDL said: But if the man is or was an absurd fantasist how come the Ombudsman’s rather detailed and lengthy ruling by a lawyer who has been practicing some 40 odd years has found in his favour and it has been shown that DBC were in fact wrong to stop dealing with him as they failed to follow their own set internal policies? If he was a fantasist then surely the Ombudsman would have said that he had no case to answer and thrown it all out on the grounds that it was all pure fantasy? I suspect that this is a textbook example of two wrongs not making a right. If the Council failed to follow their own policy, it's still quite a logical leap to say that Mr [Redacted] was right in his original complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 (edited) 21 minutes ago, John Wright said: The ombudsman adjudicated as to whether DBC had applied its policy in a manner that complied with the policy and was fair, whether the policy had been communicated and whether there had been warnings and opportunity to make responsive representation. And whether he had reached the threshold of behaviour at which they could legitimately stop interacting with him and invoke their policy of refusing to deal with him. Which he had not. There were several proven incidents of maladministration which had denied him redress in settling his complaint. That hardly supports any claim that the man is a fantasist. The Ombudsman found that maladministration had occurred. It will be interesting to see next whether their stated public claims that the police were involved in an incident of alleged bin theft were in fact true. Edited July 7 by FANDL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 What ever!!! It's still a good news/ good stick it to the Man story? It's a good 'cit5izen' action, corporation defensiveness story. Good on him! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 Up the rebels. ✊ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 12 hours ago, John Wright said: Do we believe The bin belonged to DBC The bin was the responsibility of DBC to empty The bin was on DBC land, rather than brewery land DBC secretly changed and backdated the bye laws to allow the bin to be kept by the brewery on its land? Multiple bins involved. Pictured here after they were moved to the road during the height of this game of email ping pong meets wheelie bin soap box derby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lamb Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 46 minutes ago, Amadeus said: Multiple bins involved. Pictured here after they were moved to the road during the height of this game of email ping pong meets wheelie bin soap box derby. Rubbish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 2 hours ago, Harry Lamb said: Rubbish …on so many levels… 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 The DBC Chief Executive does a good line in bullying, at least is not going to cost £50,000 at an Employment Tribunal this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Is that a public pavement? They shouldn’t be there either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 20 minutes ago, Gizo said: Is that a public pavement? They shouldn’t be there either. Yes, think that’s the corner of Willow Terrace and the back lane behind Rosemount that goes to th back of the pub. Deserves a mention on idiot parking IoM FB page. 1 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.