Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Happier diner said: And how may I ask would you know they were correct. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/coronavirus/research-and-analysis/genomics/#:~:text=The Centre for Genomic Research,our partners across the UK.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 Just now, Happier diner said: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/coronavirus/research-and-analysis/genomics/#:~:text=The Centre for Genomic Research,our partners across the UK.” Seems weird that the university had invested £20M in setting up a lab to do this testing. That's some payback. But then they do a good proportion of all the UK testing. I admit I'm no expert but something doesn't add up. I wonder if the isles of Scilly have a lab? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said: Interesting in the briefing that Ashford clearly dumped responsibility from any individual SP employee breaching the rules to Corporate SP responsibility for breaches of the rules. Basically a 'get out of jail' card for the employees of that 'Monopoly'. So as owners of the SP, the government could effectively fine the SP £10m for any breach, knock £10m off the cost of the pandemic and claim a victory...and be home in time for cornflakes. Though £5 says it will be 'lessons have been learned' ...yet again - and no one gets held to account ...yet again. There is a bit of confusion over the IOMG ownership; it does not make the SP part of government, it does not make IOMG responsible for the day to day management (they are 'responsible' for appointing a board to manage the business and that's it), it does not prevent government fining SP for a breach of whatever like any other company, or as a shareholder from suing the board for a breach of their fiduciary obligations. It does not entitle government to have access to all the records of the SP, nor to be privy to the proceedings of the board of the SP and so on. The SP as a company is distinct and separate to its shareholders. Those basic cornerstones of company law can, of course, be modified by the articles of the SP (the public document that sets out how the company works) or by a shareholders agreement or other resolution of the shareholders. But don't fall into the trap that most on FB do that the SP is really just another government department. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: If it looks straight it usually is straight. Until stuff falls off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: There is a bit of confusion over the IOMG ownership; it does not make the SP part of government, it does not make IOMG responsible for the day to day management (they are 'responsible' for appointing a board to manage the business and that's it), it does not prevent government fining SP for a breach of whatever like any other company, or as a shareholder from suing the board for a breach of their fiduciary obligations. It does not entitle government to have access to all the records of the SP, nor to be privy to the proceedings of the board of the SP and so on. The SP as a company is distinct and separate to its shareholders. Those basic cornerstones of company law can, of course, be modified by the articles of the SP (the public document that sets out how the company works) or by a shareholders agreement or other resolution of the shareholders. But don't fall into the trap that most on FB do that the SP is really just another government department. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Yes you could prosecute a company that you own and maybe government will have no option to do that. Weren't the DOI prosecuted by DEFA last your for health and safety breaches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 Happier diner... you still say you don’t see the need for genomic testing...although you also say you can see that it helps- contradictory much? Furthermore, our government can see the benefits as they clearly use and rely on it. you allegedly couldn’t see the benefit of this form of testing....even though it has been explained multiple times over the last few months to you personally. you queried the cost of implementing it...then got told it would be free you queried the timescale of results, and then got told the IOM lab would be producing results well within 36 hours as opposed to a week or three from the Liverpool lab out government is using. Quicker results is clearly better- even a troll or possession of limited intelligence would find that hard to argue, surely? now your latest attempt to denigrate the IOM lab/Dr Glover is to try and play on ‘accreditation’...which isn’t needed. please explain, if you’re genuinely “not a troll or ass” as you try to claim....what exactly is your problem? You’re clearly ‘going round in circles’ whilst at the same time telling others not to do the same thing. 4 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 Or the missus notices it and gets her spirit level out. I was being facetious btw in the earlier post. I have given the dog a bone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 Just now, manxst said: Happier diner... you still say you don’t see the need for genomic testing...although you also say you can see that it helps- contradictory much? Furthermore, our government can see the benefits as they clearly use and rely on it. you allegedly couldn’t see the benefit of this form of testing....even though it has been explained multiple times over the last few months to you personally. you queried the cost of implementing it...then got told it would be free you queried the timescale of results, and then got told the IOM lab would be producing results well within 36 hours as opposed to a week or three from the Liverpool lab out government is using. Quicker results is clearly better- even a troll or possession of limited intelligence would find that hard to argue, surely? now your latest attempt to denigrate the IOM lab/Dr Glover is to try and play on ‘accreditation’...which isn’t needed. please explain, if you’re genuinely “not a troll or ass” as you try to claim....what exactly is your problem? You’re clearly ‘going round in circles’ whilst at the same time telling others not to do the same thing. Ha Ha. Not really true. Need is not the same as help. I said 3 day or even 36 hours was no good for tracking and tracing. I'm not going in circles. You anti government moaners are. Can't let it go can you. It's not going to happen. Surely that can't just be because HQ is sulking. Surely. Hope not anyway. If they have no accreditation how would you demonstrate that they are competent to do it. Cos the owner says so? Oh that'll be ok then? Very few things in life are free. But I did say if I was offered some tests for free I'd take it so check your facts on that one. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Ha Ha. Not really true. Need is not the same as help. I said 3 day or even 36 hours was no good for tracking and tracing. I'm not going in circles. You anti government moaners are. Can't let it go can you. It's not going to happen. Surely that can't just be because HQ is sulking. Surely. Hope not anyway. If they have no accreditation how would you demonstrate that they are competent to do it. Cos the owner says so? Oh that'll be ok then? Very few things in life are free. But I did say if I was offered some tests for free I'd take it so check your facts on that one. Nah...you’re a troll and only here to try and wind people up. YOU can’t let it go. I’m not going to bother trying to explain yet again. Go and play by yourself in the corner whilst the rest of us debate the matter properly without playing your little games. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 Just now, manxst said: Nah...you’re a troll and only here to try and wind people up. YOU can’t let it go. I’m not going to bother trying to explain yet again. Go and play by yourself in the corner whilst the rest of us debate the matter properly without playing your little games. You mean while (some of) the rest of you remain bitter, twisted and frustrated that you don't get your way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, Happier diner said: You mean while (some of) the rest of you remain bitter, twisted and frustrated that you don't get your way. I'mbored with talking about this now so I'll leave you ( well the anti government whatever they do gang). To all agree with each other. My final word. Debate doesn't mean everyone agreeing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachomics Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 38 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Any accreditation would be better than none. Fabulous. Could you point me in the direction of the accreditation of the Liverpool Lab? I know most of the COG-UK guys and not one of their labs has an accreditation to their names... 7 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowMan Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 10 minutes ago, Gladys said: There is a bit of confusion over the IOMG ownership; it does not make the SP part of government, it does not make IOMG responsible for the day to day management (they are 'responsible' for appointing a board to manage the business and that's it), it does not prevent government fining SP for a breach of whatever like any other company, or as a shareholder from suing the board for a breach of their fiduciary obligations. It does not entitle government to have access to all the records of the SP, nor to be privy to the proceedings of the board of the SP and so on. The SP as a company is distinct and separate to its shareholders. This could be a big test of its fiduciary obligations. Treasury is the 100% shareholder of the SPC and Treasury officials directly appointed the SPC Officers to its Board (and the non execs too I seem to recall). So straight off it’s a fairly poor defense for the main and only shareholder in a company to say that it didn’t know what it’s appointed Officers we’re doing day to day (although that could well be true). This seems to be primarily about how a company is best able to protect its workers from harm and also best protect its only shareholder by ensuring it complies with all necessary public health directives (directives which if breached clearly have criminal as well as civil penalties attaching to them). Therefore the fact that a worker seems to have managed to have potentially spread the virus to the public is only a small part of the issue for most people I’d say. Mr Ashford seems to think that the board of a state owned company appearing to fail to comply with issued public health directives is not a matter of concern for the police to investigate which seems odd when at the same time being found staying at the house of a friend who is not part of your normal living arrangements against issued public health directives is clearly a matter for the police and the courts under exactly the same legislation. It will be interesting to see how this unravels. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, Happier diner said: It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Yes you could prosecute a company that you own and maybe government will have no option to do that. Weren't the DOI prosecuted by DEFA last your for health and safety breaches? It is likely that it would be a different department that fines the SP from the one that has shareholder responsibility, if they have breached anything. Their ownership does not change any of the obligations they already have, or the liability to penalties. I am not sure what the issue with ownership is really. What is more pertinent is was there a miscommunication, (if that is what it was), that led to the breach, (if that is what it was),? Where did it arise? In the communication from IOMG to SP or from SP to its employees? We don't know the facts, so best leave the investigation to do its job. The ownership aspect is a red herring, I think. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 Interesting news from the UK today. 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.