IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Pipsqueak]

1 hour ago, TerryFuchwit said:

What are they doing in holidays cottages?  They're not for long term residence.

holiday cottages can be used for a winter let, which we are coming to the end of at the end of this month  but they are not to be used for permanent residence,  it may be that the long term actually refers to winter let in the context of those being asked to move out.  winter lets don't pay the same as weekly summer lets or covid isolation lets.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

It is a private company that happens to be owned by IOMG, it is not a branch of government like a statutory board or company. IOMG is only entitled to information as a shareholder, although there may be some shareholder agreement setting out reporting. 

Would you expect any other private company which happens to have IOMG as a shareholder to make all its information available to the public?  

To be honest  the public interest is in what IOMG did, not the SP, although of course if there was any suspicion of illegality, then they would be subject to a criminal investigation.  

But Treasury is not really a passive shareholder and nor is it really a private company, is it? It has non-execs on the board, looking after the tax payers investment (allegedly). It also controls the other assets that allow the IOMSPCo to operate, again on behalf of the taxpayer.

And of course there'll be no external investigation, criminal or otherwise because it's not in either IOMG or IOMSPCo interest to have one in case there was a screw up that could have been avoided.

I did wonder how long it would be before something like this cropped up where IOMG would be conflicted.
 

[Andy Onchan]

9 minutes ago, Banker said:

There’s a summary of today’s Tynwald discussion on SPC on gef page but here’s one exchange 

Claire Barber - What legal qualification does this officer have? What other breaches of the law can they decide on?

HQ - I believe that the Chief Secretary has the responsibility for deciding if a crime has occured and if that gets referred to the police, see what the review says

 

That's a staggering remark to make.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Andy Onchan

[Apple]

I see Chris Thomas is looking again at his citizens  data bases this time on the back of the details of the vaccination records and the census.

I don't think k he will be happy until everyone of us is databased, categorised, shoehorned and put and kept into our little boxes.

1984 will arrive in the next parliament I'm sure.

 

[Apple]

23 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

My sister who's a nurse in district offered to help months ago on her days off but heard nothing. In the end she kicked up a stink to those in charge and eventually she had some shifts. Now she is doing a few days a week over and above her usual duties. As a footnote she offered as felt she should and so not for any monetary reason. All a bit incestous it sounds tbh between managers and their own staff . 

In reality this is an aspect that DA does not see to get involved in. He needs to.

Managers promoting their own is not unheard of.

[Banker]

26 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

That's a staggering remark to make.

Here’s another one !

Claire Barber - What other prosecutions were carried out when there were ‘misunderstandings’.

HQ - I can’t comment, let’s see what the review finds.

[Gladys]

17 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But Treasury is not really a passive shareholder and nor is it really a private company, is it? It has non-execs on the board, looking after the tax payers investment (allegedly). It also controls the other assets that allow the IOMSPCo to operate, again on behalf of the taxpayer.

And of course there'll be no external investigation, criminal or otherwise because it's not in either IOMG or IOMSPCo interest to have one in case there was a screw up that could have been avoided.

I did wonder how long it would be before something like this cropped up where IOMG would be conflicted.
 

Treasury is arm's length and the SP is a private company, ie in the private sector.  So, ordinary company law rules apply which is why Cannan has not shared the report.  I understand that.

As for an external investigation, it depends what you mean by that. Do you mean a police investigation or an investigation by a party outside of IOMG like an advocate?

The review is of the actions of IOMG.  If it has been properly defined in the terms of reference  then it should reveal if the directives given were clear, unambiguous and adequately dealt with the risk factors of the crew, that they were given to the correct party and that there was a mechanism for monitoring compliance.  If they are found to be so, then the next question is an investigation of the SP and how they implemented the directives.

I am not defending either IOMG or the SP just outlining the realities of what to expect. 

HQ'S comments about legal advice on prosecution are the real concern and if you look back at Ian Kermode's challenge  that aspect is fundamental. 

But you are right about conflict and I think Alf Cannan's actions are to minimise that potential conflict.  Lets face it, if he had passed the report from the SP over, it could screw up an investigation as the proper processes and division of responsibility would have been compromised.

From what I hear of the debate, it doesn't look like this is going to be swept under the carpet and so it shouldn't,  but it has to be handled in the correct way observing what many may think are legal niceties so that the end result is credible.

 

[Gladys]

46 minutes ago, Banker said:

IOMG are ultimately the owner and that’s it. It’s a bit like saying Chelsea football club is a private company and the owner Roman Abramovich has no say in what happens when in fact he sacks the MD or manager whenever he feels like it.

Does he sack or does the board? You are also missing the corporate structure above Chelsea FC, so the actual mechanism may be very different from Roman rocking up one day and saying, you're fired.

[Non-Believer]

36 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

And of course there'll be no external investigation, criminal or otherwise because it's not in either IOMG or IOMSPCo interest to have one in case there was a screw up that could have been avoided.

I did wonder how long it would be before something like this cropped up where IOMG would be conflicted.
 

This.

Plus, being that a few years ago, they buried a critical report, funded by the taxpayers, into the SP when it was a private company with no Govt ownership; they're hardly likely to make public any critical report of a company that they are now the owners of, either..?

[Apple]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

From what I hear of the debate, it doesn't look like this is going to be swept under the carpet and so it shouldn't,  but it has to be handled in the correct way observing what many may think are legal niceties so that the end result is credible.

The SP will not get criticised as we can not do without them. It is as simple as that in the end.

Henrietta or someone in PH might get a frosty look though.

 

[Apple]

2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Plus, being that a few years ago, they buried a critical report, funded by the taxpayers, into the SP when it was a private company with no Govt ownership; they're hardly likely to make public any critical report of a company that they are now the owners of, either..?

Ha Ha. Quite right. The DHSC has over the years conducted some investigation / reports that have either not been made public or have been redacted in a way not to show the redactions.

And it won't be any different when Manx Care kicks in.

Accountability pushed down the road.

 

[Andy Onchan]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Treasury is arm's length and the SP is a private company, ie in the private sector.  So, ordinary company law rules apply which is why Cannan has not shared the report.  I understand that.

As for an external investigation, it depends what you mean by that. Do you mean a police investigation or an investigation by a party outside of IOMG like an advocate?

The review is of the actions of IOMG.  If it has been properly defined in the terms of reference  then it should reveal if the directives given were clear, unambiguous and adequately dealt with the risk factors of the crew, that they were given to the correct party and that there was a mechanism for monitoring compliance.  If they are found to be so, then the next question is an investigation of the SP and how they implemented the directives.

I am not defending either IOMG or the SP just outlining the realities of what to expect. 

HQ'S comments about legal advice on prosecution are the real concern and if you look back at Ian Kermode's challenge  that aspect is fundamental. 

But you are right about conflict and I think Alf Cannan's actions are to minimise that potential conflict.  Lets face it, if he had passed the report from the SP over, it could screw up an investigation as the proper processes and division of responsibility would have been compromised.

From what I hear of the debate, it doesn't look like this is going to be swept under the carpet and so it shouldn't,  but it has to be handled in the correct way observing what many may think are legal niceties so that the end result is credible.

 

I absolutely understand what you are saying about IOMSPCo being a private company but IOMG/Treasury have their own people on the board, they can influence the decision making. That is not arms length. If there were other shareholders then I would agree, to a certain extent.

I was being facetious on the matter of the external investigation. There won't be one.... nothing to see.... move along.

[Pipsqueak]

1 hour ago, Banker said:

There’s a summary of today’s Tynwald discussion on SPC on gef page but here’s one exchange 

Claire Barber - What legal qualification does this officer have? What other breaches of the law can they decide on?

HQ - I believe that the Chief Secretary has the responsibility for deciding if a crime has occured and if that gets referred to the police, see what the review says

 

isn't it HQ and his cohorts 'beliefs' that have got us into this SPCO sponsored lockdown ?

[Pipsqueak]

59 minutes ago, Apple said:

 

1984 will arrive in the next parliament I'm sure.

 

wow,  the IOM isn't as far behind the UK as many folks think.

[Annoymouse]

45 New cases
19 in Hospital