Rob Callister

[WTF]

1 minute ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Yeh, but ... the only form of minute is supposed to be verbatim - and we all remember occasions when it hasn't been - is Hansard.  All other forms of minute are heavily abbreviated versions of proceedings at meetings etc.  So if the People's Prince was, as the departmental members seem to imply, treating DHSC civil servants badly in meetings, I doubt that it would be evidenced in the minutes.

does treat badly mean disagree with ?

[Two-lane]

22 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The letter also has very little connection to the accurate use of English, so I assume it was written by a civil servant.

Reading that letter is headache-inducing - or should I say "onboarding the contents of that letter is likely to induce non-social interactive tendencies which may be ameliorated by ingesting appropriate quantities of alcoholic fluids".

I have no doubt I would be unable to communicate with those people. If one person wrote it, I might accept that as an individual  they were a bit off in their literary technique - but three of them co-wrote, and presumably proof-read and corrected, that piece of tripe.

[Boo Gay'n]

2 hours ago, WTF said:

does treat badly mean disagree with ?

The exact, and circumlocutive, phrase in the letter was, "communication styles have been less amicable than they ought to".  Forgive the grammar, I didn't write it!

Edited November 15, 2022 by Boo Gay'n
typo

[cissolt]

Quirky was on the Manning line defending the people's prince, never thought I'd see the day!

[Steady Eddie]

21 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Quirky was on the Manning line defending the people's prince, never thought I'd see the day!

It’s clear they all hate August-Hanson much more than they might feel sorry for Callister. I mean does anyone really think Callister couldn’t possibly have been incompetent for one minute? Of course not. But there are bigger scalps they are going for here.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Steady Eddie

[2112]

2 hours ago, asitis said:

Christ ....... were not waiting for another point by point rebuttal are we ! LOL.

Perhaps Ashford is giving point by point rebuttal training.

[Numbnuts]

14 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Perhaps Ashford is giving point by point rebuttal training.

We will never know as he will have shredded his notes ....

[Ham_N_Eggs]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's probably a lost cause but if people actually realised there is a difference between 'refute' and 'deny', then they might actually provide some evidence when they claim to 'refute' something.  Not that it's particularly clear what they are denying even.

The three DMs have released to Manx Radio the initial letter they sent to Cannan, though what was actually said at the meeting was presumably more important.  The letter also has very little connection to the accurate use of English, so I assume it was written by a civil servant.

 

It's so vague and badly written is it any wonder he had to have a meeting with the DM's to find out what on earth they were talking about.

I'd also hazard a guess at which one them wrote it based on one of the rare occasions I've listened to Legislative Council.

[Steady Eddie]

16 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

It's so vague and badly written is it any wonder he had to have a meeting with the DM's to find out what on earth they were talking about.

It clearly says he’s an angry shouty man though in civil servant speak 

[Declan]

If I’ve understood the letter to the CM (and I maybe wrong since it’s so badly written) but this seems to be the situation-

Department has just been found to have a Toxic culture. Neither of the previous two ministers were surprised. 
 

Rob is a new minister and has approached the role with a wide eyed vigour and a focus on patient outcomes. 
 

It’s seems he’s been boisterous in his approach with officials. And in the atmosphere he’s inherited this has caused concern. 
 

The officials rightly raise concern with the dept members, who in turn raise in with the CM. Maybe they could have raised it with Rob as colleagues but didn’t feel they could. 

If they can’t have a quiet word with Rob telling him to wind his neck in, or if they have and Rob’s refused or gotten on his high horse. It seems right to raise it with Cannon as his line manager. 
 

Wouldn’t most line managers in this situation try and manage the situation? There are many options here - coaching, mentoring, bollocking, formal warning to fix the issue before sacking. 
 

This looks like poor management to me. I also wonder about Crookhall’s resignation after a month at Enterprise. Was he, like Rob, told to resign? 
 

Of course Rob’s spoilt child act is very amusing and he clearly needs to reflect on his part in his downfall but this episode is beginning to look like it’s down to Cannon’s failure  

 

 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

12 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

It clearly says he’s an angry shouty man though in civil servant speak 

It's that vague it doesn't actually say who was shouting. 

[slinkydevil]

4 hours ago, Manx Bean said:

Rob Callister’s behaviour since being sacked wholly supports the view that he wasn’t made of the right stuff, and certainly not Minister material. 

Grow up man, and stop blubbing like a toddler who’s last his favourite teddy.

You know when you pause and remember the millions of fallen soldiers... nah I would still make sure I chuck in a paragraph about me and my feelings.

[Boo Gay'n]

4 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

You know when you pause and remember the millions of fallen soldiers... nah I would still make sure I chuck in a paragraph about me and my feelings.

We then went home and, after playing with the cat I sat down to have tea because Ellen had made me my favourite, a runny egg and four toasty soldiers, before we watched some old episodes of the Sweeney on television.  I am a bit like John Thaw in truth.  Before bed, I did a poo, and confess that I shed a tear or two while on the porcelain throne, being both broken and appalled in equal measure.  What is to become of my beloved Onchan, without its People's Prince in one of the highest offices in our beloved Ellan Vannin?

[Gladys]

13 minutes ago, Declan said:

If I’ve understood the letter to the CM (and I maybe wrong since it’s so badly written) but this seems to be the situation-

Department has just been found to have a Toxic culture. Neither of the previous two ministers were surprised. 
 

Rob is a new minister and has approached the role with a wide eyed vigour and a focus on patient outcomes. 
 

It’s seems he’s been boisterous in his approach with officials. And in the atmosphere he’s inherited this has caused concern. 
 

The officials rightly raise concern with the dept members, who in turn raise in with the CM. Maybe they could have raised it with Rob as colleagues but didn’t feel they could. 

If they can’t have a quiet word with Rob telling him to wind his neck in, or if they have and Rob’s refused or gotten on his high horse. It seems right to raise it with Cannon as his line manager. 
 

Wouldn’t most line managers in this situation try and manage the situation? There are many options here - coaching, mentoring, bollocking, formal warning to fix the issue before sacking. 
 

This looks like poor management to me. I also wonder about Crookhall’s resignation after a month at Enterprise. Was he, like Rob, told to resign? 
 

Of course Rob’s spoilt child act is very amusing and he clearly needs to reflect on his part in his downfall but this episode is beginning to look like it’s down to Cannon’s failure  

 

 

I kind of agree, if it wasn't the most important department for all of us.  The softly, softly approach may be the right one, but perhaps, just maybe, it needs someone who is a bit more forthright?  

Perhaps putting everyone on their mettle is what is needed, there may be some sweaty times, but the outcome may be beneficial.

Putting a very simplistic spin on it, if the bullies are the ones complaining, then is that not a good thing?

BTW no fan of RC, but really, someone needs to go in and be supported to really change things. 

[Two-lane]

10 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

It clearly says he’s an angry shouty man though in civil servant speak 

The use of the word "amicable" is an indication that the authors of the document expect gov. business meetings to be carried out in a certain style - that everyone has to be friendly and nice and chatty and best mates an no-one tries to grab all the chocolate bourbons. This is unrealistic.

If an organisation is in trouble, things are going tits-up, and it is because of the actions of members of the organisation (rather than acts of God), I would expect there to be a lot of harsh words, and worse, said in these meetings.

Over the years I have been in quite a few project meetings. At the start of the project the meetings are always amicable. But when the project got behind schedule , the meetings became a lot less than friendly - that is the way things are in the real world when things go wrong and a penalty clause is in the contract.