Rob Callister

[TheTeapot]

A lot of this shit just shows how thoroughly stupid public life is, and why nothing gets done. They're all, every single person named in this report, obsessed with their own egos.

Do your fucking job.

[Roxanne]

12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The only example they give of 'non-cooperation' is, as I said, his failure to keep quiet.

It's not Roger. 

 

56 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

That Mr Callister breached Tynwald standards of conduct by failing to co- operate with an investigation by the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee and in particular by commenting in public on matters under investigation in defiance of a clear instruction from the Committee not to do so. 

It wasn't just him commenting where he not not comply.  it states very clearly that he did not cooperate, in particular by commenting'...That would suggest that he also did not cooperate in other areas too.

ETA - Joney Faragher also said this in her statement from yesterday,

'‘The committee finds that Mr Callister failed to cooperate with the investigation, and made repeated public comments (for which he is required to apologise to Tynwald court'

So there was more to it than he should not comment in public.

And I also disagree with you about Alf's intentions. I think he knew it would all come out and also know it was the only way to prove Rob was disingenuous and a bully in the workplace. (again, we can see how that went...), but I do believe his intentions were genuine. Rob may have asked for an enquiry against his fellow MHKs bullying practices towards him, but he sure as hell didn't really want it to happen because he knew exactly how it was going to pan out. IE - the one doing the bullying was him.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Roxanne
To add ETA

[Declan]

2 hours ago, Passing Time said:

Before you jump on your high horse again, you do know men can be called witches as well...

Find me an occasion where a male Manx politician has been called a witch?

[Catrisk]

6 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Cut from the same cloth.

Simply not true. The actual worst bullies in government are the cowards who round on people like this and use internal policies and processes and silly accusations that have to be investigated to ensure these sort of people get kicked out. The other MHKs in this report and the civil servants referred to are simply playing from the standard civil service play book. Oh I’m offended, oh you’re not respecting my dignity, you’re making me feel unsafe. IOM Government is full of these nasty little nests of sniping vipers out to cause trouble for anyone who they don’t like or who asks them to do anything they don’t like. That’s all this report confirms to me. 

[Roxanne]

2 minutes ago, Catrisk said:

Simply not true. The actual worst bullies in government are the cowards who round on people like this and use internal policies and processes and silly accusations that have to be investigated to ensure these sort of people get kicked out. The other MHKs in this report and the civil servants referred to are simply playing from the standard civil service play book. Oh I’m offended, oh you’re not respecting my dignity, you’re making me feel unsafe. IOM Government is full of these nasty little nests of sniping vipers out to cause trouble for anyone who they don’t like or who asks them to do anything they don’t like. That’s all this report confirms to me. 

I would suggest you revisit this thread and read some of the stuff RC has posted in the past.  I would also suggest you google him and discover his track record in government thus far.

[Declan]

42 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Do the MHK's have to vote to accept the report, when it laid before them, or do they debate the report, then vote to accept. It is all a little confusing. Rob Callister seems to have been found guilty but the committee, but not by his peers. 

If the process is the same as when Houghton was in trouble, the report is presented and MHKs vote to accept it, probably after a debate (Rob will want his say for sure), then Rob apologises. They could decide to accept the report as a whole or vote on each recommendation in turn (i.e. 1 about Michelle and 3 about Rob). 

Or make up another process to suit the occasions as is their wont. 

[2bees]

Whooooooah, bam! Catrisk that's a bit mad. Unless someone speaks out for 'the little people' they will remain being down trodden, having no sleep and feeling sick at the fear of going to work. 

The social media wars are a bit without class, being an MHK should be seen as a huge responsibility and an honour, I'm not impressed by people fighting on Facebook and the like at the best of times its totally unnecessary and very un MHK like. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by 2bees

[Catrisk]

3 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I would suggest you revisit this thread and read some of the stuff RC has posted in the past.  I would also suggest you google him and discover his track record in government thus far.

I would suggest that you stop with the general character assassination of one person and look at the wider picture. Many of us who have worked in government come up against these nasty little cells all the time. If you don’t fit in they’ll bully you out and off to somewhere else and you’ll end up with all sorts of trumped up allegations being made to personnel by sinister pack of people working in tandem to get rid of people they don’t want supervising them because that person might actually ask them to justify their job. 

[Passing Time]

12 minutes ago, Declan said:

Find me an occasion where a male Manx politician has been called a witch?

You said it was a gender specific attack. I am merely pointing out that witches can also be male thereby rendering your statement null and void...

[HiVibes]

1 minute ago, Passing Time said:

null and void...

that's you that is.

[Declan]

1 minute ago, Passing Time said:

You said it was a gender specific attack. I am merely pointing out that witches can also be male thereby rendering your statement null and void...

It is if it's only used against one gender. 

You'd look less idiotic  if you argued it was just a bit of banter and politicians set themselves up for that when they take the office, than trying to argue something that is patently untrue. 

[Passing Time]

Just now, Declan said:

It is if it's only used against one gender. 

You'd look less idiotic  if you argued it was just a bit of banter and politicians set themselves up for that when they take the office, than trying to argue something that is patently untrue. 

And you'd look less patronising if.. oh hang on, you'd appear patronising with whatever you commented on...

[Beelzebub3]

35 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I've been in a job with a bullying manager. I've had sleepless nights not wanting to go into work, I've been made sick with it and I'm an emotionally strong person. I wanted to do my job but was thwarted at every turn. Lots of people are in this position right now. This is a case at the highest level. We didn't say that Dr Ranson should just do her fucking job did we? Not when we knew what she had gone through.

This is no different.

I was in a position like that when I was a lot younger and foolishly put up with it for a while, then when I put him on his ass his attitude changed completely and we got on like a house on fire, in fact he was a better man for it when it was pointed out that he was a prick of a boss worked with him for a few years after and never seen him treating anyone else like shit.

[Roger Mexico]

57 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It wasn't just him commenting where he not not comply.  it states very clearly that he did not cooperate, in particular by commenting'...That would suggest that he also did not cooperate in other areas too.

ETA - Joney Faragher also said this in her statement from yesterday,

'‘The committee finds that Mr Callister failed to cooperate with the investigation, and made repeated public comments (for which he is required to apologise to Tynwald court'

So there was more to it than he should not comment in public.

But no one's giving any other examples, at best they're just implying he was uncooperative in other ways.  But I can't see where it's said he refused to supply particular information or refused to be interviewed or whatever, which are the sort of ways you would expect cooperation to be refused in an inquiry.   Callister's normally accused of over-sharing, not the opposite.

Non-cooperation in the way it's being used here just seems to mean "Won't do what we want him to do".  Which isn't quite the same thing.

[Declan]

6 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But no one's giving any other examples, at best they're just implying he was uncooperative in other ways.  But I can't see where it's said he refused to supply particular information or refused to be interviewed or whatever, which are the sort of ways you would expect cooperation to be refused in an inquiry.   Callister's normally accused of over-sharing, not the opposite.

Non-cooperation in the way it's being used here just seems to mean "Won't do what we want him to do".  Which isn't quite the same thing.

He seems to have made lots of submissions. It was his allegations that began the investigation after all.

 I still think this could have been resolved by reconciliation.