Rob Callister

[Rob Callister]

2 hours ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

Beecroft apparently tried to sack Couch last year. She asked for backing from her DHSC members. Callister had been a member of the DHSC for about 8 weeks but he refused to sign the letter sacking Couch then in a huff he went to the media (surprise there!) and resigned in a very high profile way saying Beecroft was wrong to try to sack Couch. He clearly was backing Couch and stopped the Minister from dealing with the situation as she saw it. 

Roll forward a year and a bit and Beecroft has been sacked as DHSC Minister after Robs “expose” to the media and Couch has now gone anyway. Makes you wonder why he went against his Minister by backing a CEO who clearly the Minister had no confidence in over a year ago. 

Here is the report 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32583

So you could say perhaps he’s ensured that he have wasted a year dealing with a problem that could have been dealt with relatively easily last March had he not tried to use the situation to enhance his own profile in the media by pulling a silly stunt to attack Kate Beecroft and get her sacked. 

If you are remotely interested in the truth, then I would recommend that you spend 10 minutes reading the evidence I gave to the Public Accounts Committee on 30th October 2017, because it is 100% factual and an accurate timeline of the events under the previous Minister and CEO...

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/pachsc171023-30.pdf

 

[dilligaf]

2 hours ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

Because the previous incumbent put her in deliberately to fail, but RC certainly put the boot in with his high profile media stunt designed to highlight exactly what she had tried to do so she would definitely get the bullet. 

Wrong, again.

[dilligaf]

32 minutes ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

 Because you say so. Not because what you say is an actual fact. 

It is though, none the less.

[Uhtred]

2 hours ago, dilligaf said:

Why did KB get into the war zone in the first place ?

Well indeed. A good question.

[dilligaf]

I really can't see KB being too impressed being defended by an arse like you TBH.

[WTF]

9 hours ago, dilligaf said:

I really can't see KB being too impressed being defended by an arse like you TBH.

JW  might feel the same.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

10 hours ago, Rob Callister said:

If you are remotely interested in the truth, then I would recommend that you spend 10 minutes reading the evidence I gave to the Public Accounts Committee on 30th October 2017, because it is 100% factual and an accurate timeline of the events under the previous Minister and CEO...

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/pachsc171023-30.pdf

 

Out of interest how can read a letter but not know what the content is?

"...was justified for the Minister giving us a letter in 
March to sign blindly. I do not think I would ask anyone to try to get anyone sacked without just course.
3210
Q310. The Chairman: What letter is that?
Mr Callister: The letter the Minister asked us to sign in March.
3215 Q311. The Chairman: About?
Mr Callister: Just asking us to sign. I do not know what the content of that letter was. Just asked us to sign a letter blindly in March.
3220 Q312. Mr Crookall: Regarding the Chief Executive?
Mr Callister: Yes, regarding the Chief Executive.
Q313. Mr Coleman: Do you think it was something like a vote of no confidence in him?
3225
Mr Callister: It came across that way. I just felt the way the Minister had handled that – to 
walk into a room and to ask us just to sign a letter without any understanding or explanation –
to me, was totally wrong.
3230 Q314. Mr Cretney: You read the letter, yes

Mr Callister: I read it. (Mr Cretney: Right.) I read the letter and I refused to sign it, and that, 
unfortunately, was the end for me really, based on what I have just said to you"

[buncha wankas]

10 hours ago, Rob Callister said:

If you are remotely interested in the truth, then I would recommend that you spend 10 minutes reading the evidence I gave to the Public Accounts Committee on 30th October 2017, because it is 100% factual and an accurate timeline of the events under the previous Minister and CEO...

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/pachsc171023-30.pdf

 

At 2540

Mr Callister:” No, unfortunately not, Mr Cretney. I basically did nothing. I did not speak to a single member of staff, “

This is direct quote from the report and your testimony about what you accomplished whilst a member at hospital

Seriously   Callister, could you be any more stupid old chap, you openly admit to getting paid Near 60 k a year to do a job  and your management skills are so crap and weak you can not even justify the money your took  and spent  for doing nothing.    You bleat that you left out of integrity, whilst being to thick to understand you were the person who was being paid to ‘do something’. Not wait for a civil servant to tell you what to do. FFS.  It’s true what they say about you, you really are thick. You make the other MHKs look positively educated next to you. 

 

You even direct us to the report and bring to out attention how bloody lazy and whimsy you are.  Golden , absolutely Golden 

[The Duck of Atholl]

17 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Out of interest how can read a letter but not know what the content is?

"...was justified for the Minister giving us a letter in 
March to sign blindly. I do not think I would ask anyone to try to get anyone sacked without just course.
3210
Q310. The Chairman: What letter is that?
Mr Callister: The letter the Minister asked us to sign in March.
3215 Q311. The Chairman: About?
Mr Callister: Just asking us to sign. I do not know what the content of that letter was. Just asked us to sign a letter blindly in March.
3220 Q312. Mr Crookall: Regarding the Chief Executive?
Mr Callister: Yes, regarding the Chief Executive.
Q313. Mr Coleman: Do you think it was something like a vote of no confidence in him?
3225
Mr Callister: It came across that way. I just felt the way the Minister had handled that – to 
walk into a room and to ask us just to sign a letter without any understanding or explanation –
to me, was totally wrong.
3230 Q314. Mr Cretney: You read the letter, yes

Mr Callister: I read it. (Mr Cretney: Right.) I read the letter and I refused to sign it, and that, 
unfortunately, was the end for me really, based on what I have just said to you"

That's interesting. So Rob allegedly says he was asked to sign a letter without having read it and shortly afterwards admits to having read it it?  Quite disingenuos

[buncha wankas]

4 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

That's interesting. So Rob allegedly says he was asked to sign a letter without having read it and shortly afterwards admits to having read it it?  Quite disingenuos

Rob Callister seems to be a liar as well as “. Basically did nothing’ for his pay check.    Let’s hope he exits soon.   

Next.....

[Declan]

35 minutes ago, buncha wankas said:

At 2540

Mr Callister:” No, unfortunately not, Mr Cretney. I basically did nothing. I did not speak to a single member of staff, “

This is direct quote from the report and your testimony about what you accomplished whilst a member at hospital

Seriously   Callister, could you be any more stupid old chap, you openly admit to getting paid Near 60 k a year to do a job  and your management skills are so crap and weak you can not even justify the money your took  and spent  for doing nothing.    You bleat that you left out of integrity, whilst being to thick to understand you were the person who was being paid to ‘do something’. Not wait for a civil servant to tell you what to do. FFS.  It’s true what they say about you, you really are thick. You make the other MHKs look positively educated next to you. 

 

You even direct us to the report and bring to out attention how bloody lazy and whimsy you are.  Golden , absolutely Golden 

I don’t think that’s fair. Reading the report, he was given joint responsibility in name only. But in practice Kate kept everything to herself and this was aggravated by a department culture where the CS presented the political members with policy ideas to take it or leave rather than involving them in the nitty gritty. He was effectively  out of the loop. 

He raised this a number with the minister often, he says, and with the CM. And when it was clear he wasn’t really going to be delegated any responsibility he resigned. 

I don’t like the idea of Rob charging around Noble’s uninvited opening broom cupboards and trying to interview patients in ITU. So the correct thing to do is go through the correct channels, and those channels weren’t open to him. 

So he launched himself into his other responsibility at DED and I don’t think we can doubt his enthusiasm there.

Calling him lazy is unfair, but the episode raises the question of why Kate didn’t trust him to do anything and why the department officials kept him out of the loop.

Did Kate have a lack of confidence in him?

Does it illustrate a flaw in Kate’s management style and the culture of the department?

Is it appropriate for Quayle to delegate political responsibility (especially for the Hospital) to a new MHK before he’s learnt the art of negotiating the bureaucracy?

 

 

[buncha wankas]

8 minutes ago, Declan said:

I don’t think that’s fair. Reading the report, he was given joint responsibility in name only. But in practice Kate kept everything to herself and this was aggravated by a department culture where the CS presented the political members with policy ideas to take it or leave rather than involving them in the nitty gritty. He was effectively  out of the loop. 

He raised this a number with the minister often, he says, and with the CM. And when it was clear he wasn’t really going to be delegated any responsibility he resigned. 

I don’t like the idea of Rob charging around Noble’s uninvited opening broom cupboards and trying to interview patients in ITU. So the correct thing to do is go through the correct channels, and those channels weren’t open to him. 

So he launched himself into his other responsibility at DED and I don’t think we can doubt his enthusiasm there.

Calling him lazy is unfair, but the episode raises the question of why Kate didn’t trust him to do anything and why the department officials kept him out of the loop.

Did Kate have a lack of confidence in him?

Does it illustrate a flaw in Kate’s management style and the culture of the department?

Is it appropriate for Quayle to delegate political responsibility (especially for the Hospital) to a new MHK before he’s learnt the art of negotiating the bureaucracy?

 

 

That will be the DED with private accidents and very quiet political members but they turn up to VIP tents

 

being a MHK is not a baby hugging job...  you don’t ask or wait..you stick your foot in and stick your neck out, knocking on doors and asking nicely is the bit when you get the votes, not the skill needed to be an MHK.    To easy to blame others, which he likes to do.

i think you hit the nail on the head,   Someone had a lack of confidence in him... Him, himself because he is weak management, I don’t think he actually knows what management means.  

[Ham_N_Eggs]

4 minutes ago, Declan said:

I don’t think that’s fair. Reading the report, he was given joint responsibility in name only. But in practice Kate kept everything to herself and this was aggravated by a department culture where the CS presented the political members with policy ideas to take it or leave rather than involving them in the nitty gritty. He was effectively  out of the loop. 

He raised this a number with the minister often, he says, and with the CM. And when it was clear he wasn’t really going to be delegated any responsibility he resigned. 

I don’t like the idea of Rob charging around Noble’s uninvited opening broom cupboards and trying to interview patients in ITU. So the correct thing to do is go through the correct channels, and those channels weren’t open to him. 

So he launched himself into his other responsibility at DED and I don’t think we can doubt his enthusiasm there.

Calling him lazy is unfair, but the episode raises the question of why Kate didn’t trust him to do anything and why the department officials kept him out of the loop.

Did Kate have a lack of confidence in him?

Does it illustrate a flaw in Kate’s management style and the culture of the department?

Is it appropriate for Quayle to delegate political responsibility (especially for the Hospital) to a new MHK before he’s learnt the art of negotiating the bureaucracy?

 

 

My understanding is that new MHK's were asked for what Department they prefer to be in. It was then up to the minister to decide who to take on. It could be said that having taken him on Mrs Beecroft rapidly realised his capabilities and so limited his ability to do harm to an incredibly sensitive area (see my previous comment where he contradicts himself within 2 minutes also tune into any committee he sits on). It may also have been that Beecroft herself had limited powers given Crouch's attitude towards politicians and so adding a bull in China shop into the mix probably wouldn't have been a great idea. Why she didn't just remove him is another question that only she can answer.

[Donald Trumps]

1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

My understanding is that new MHK's were asked for what Department they prefer to be in. It was then up to the minister to decide who to take on. It could be said that having taken him on Mrs Beecroft rapidly realised his capabilities and so limited his ability to do harm to an incredibly sensitive area (see my previous comment where he contradicts himself within 2 minutes also tune into any committee he sits on). It may also have been that Beecroft herself had limited powers given Crouch's attitude towards politicians and so adding a bull in China shop into the mix probably wouldn't have been a great idea. Why she didn't just remove him is another question that only she can answer.

Really wonder why MHKs should be in departments at all if it's such a random kind of process

[Donald Trumps]

Not making sure the stats comply?