IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Kopek]

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

Yeah, I never bother with one of them either, judge it by eye!

Yeah, measure once, cut twice! I think that is the dhsc rule???

[Numbnuts]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

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. 

Could be a good test also of the new AG's office of the intending prosecute and defence role they are going to have to deal with it .  

[Gladys]

13 minutes ago, CowMan said:

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. 

Several assumptions there - 

1 That IOMG knew, or should have known,   what was happening in the day to day management.  Why would they when they have appointed professionals and experts in the field? Let alone whether they are entitled to such information.  

2 That there were public health directives issued to the SP in clear and unequivocal terms (bearing in mind the exemption they had since last March).

3 That there was a failure to comply to directives by the SP.

4 That it was that failure that led to the breach resulting in positive cases amongst the crew.

5 That the breach is sufficient to warrant a criminal investigation.  

I  do not know the answer to any of those assumptions which is why the investigation should run.

[CowMan]

13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

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),?

The belief of many is that no fine or action will be issued because the issuing of a fine itself suggests wrongness. And if wrongness has happened the public will believe (rightly or wrongly) that the shareholder is ultimately responsible for it. In reality it may well be some poor SPC worker who gets his 14 days in the Jurby Hilton because, as other cases have shown us in the last year, ignorance of the islands quarantine rules has been held as no excuse in the eyes of the Court. I believe that previous legal defenses from isolation breakers that they didn’t understand the significance of the notices given to them fell on deaf ears. If that happens a strike may well ensue.

[CowMan]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I do not know the answer to any of those assumptions which is why the investigation should run.

Of course I’m just surprised that it isn’t to be a police investigation as all other cases involving the breaking of quarantine rules and government directions have been a matter for the police and the courts to deal with. As I said above I’m assuming that they dont want anyone ending up inside if that happens as without doubt there would likely be a strike amongst SPC workers concerned about future personal liabilities. But it seems to be that ignorance of the law has been no excuse for others up until now.

it will be interesting. 

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, CowMan said:

The belief of many is that no fine or action will be issued because the issuing of a fine itself suggests wrongness. And if wrongness has happened the public will believe (rightly or wrongly) that the shareholder is ultimately responsible for it. In reality it may well be some poor SPC worker who gets his 14 days in the Jurby Hilton because, as other cases have shown us in the last year, ignorance of the islands quarantine rules has been held as no excuse in the eyes of the Court. I believe that previous legal defenses from isolation breakers that they didn’t understand the significance of the notices given to them fell on deaf ears. If that happens a strike may well ensue.

That hasn't happened yet, so why second guess the outcome?  Has anyone been arrested, cautioned or named?

[Albert Tatlock]

8 minutes ago, CowMan said:

If that happens a strike may well ensue.

I agree, a strike would be highly likely, if someone got jailed. Hence why I believe they have been quick to change it from individual to corporate responsibility. 

I see the likely outcome as revised memorandum of understanding, slap on wrist  and extra training for employee(s) involved, perhaps a training refresher for all. End of matter.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Albert Tatlock

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, CowMan said:

Of course I’m just surprised that it isn’t to be a police investigation as all other cases involving the breaking of quarantine rules and government directions have been a matter for the police and the courts to deal with. As I said above I’m assuming that they dont want anyone ending up inside if that happens as without doubt there would likely be a strike amongst SPC workers concerned about future personal liabilities. But it seems to be that ignorance of the law has been no excuse for others up until now.

it will be interesting. 

It depends on whether there were valid directives,  who they were issued to and who was expected to observe them.  Like I say, people have already decided on the outcome but we don't know the facts. 

[CowMan]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It depends on whether there were valid directives,  who they were issued to and who was expected to observe them.  Like I say, people have already decided on the outcome but we don't know the facts. 

Do you trust that government itself has the guaranteed impartiality to investigate whether it did or didn’t issue valid directives to the board of a company it also owns? I think most people would probably be happier if it was a formal police investigation. But then, as I said, it’s highly likely a worker might end up serving time like many of the other people who have failed to act as directed. Then there is a serious risk of a strike. As you say it’s speculation but there seem to be plenty speculating on this forum in many other ways. 

[Gladys]

Just now, CowMan said:

Do you trust that government itself has the guaranteed impartiality to investigate whether it did or didn’t issue valid directives to the board of a company it also owns? I think most people would probably be happier if it was a formal police investigation. But then, as I said, it’s highly likely a worker might end up serving time like many of the other people who have failed to act as directed. Then there is a serious risk of a strike. As you say it’s speculation but there seem to be plenty speculating on this forum in many other ways. 

Not sure the police would be able to determine the validity of any directives.  That would be an AG determination, I guess. 

[CowMan]

Just now, Gladys said:

Not sure the police would be able to determine the validity of any directives. 

Between them and the courts they seem to have done ok so far in almost every other case of people breaking quarantine rules haven’t they? 

[Albert Tatlock]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Not sure the police would be able to determine the validity of any directives.  That would be an AG determination, I guess. 

And where does the Captain's responsibilities fit into all that also?

IMO it's all a potential legal Big Fella's nest. Covid regs/directives, maritime regs, H&S regs etc. etc.

Best resolved positively, amicably, responsibly...and just make the chances of it happening again minimal.

I suspect 95% of the population would agree to that...but expect some of those jailed already to complain.

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, CowMan said:

Between them and the courts they seem to have done ok so far in almost every other case of people breaking quarantine rules haven’t they? 

The police, so far, have operated on the basis that the directives were valid.  The police don't query whether the statute they are investigating someone under is valid, that is for the AG who actually prosecutes. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Gladys

[quilp]

Quayle, in interview, pointed the finger directly at a UK worker who flagrantly broke the rules by not wearing a mask. It would therefore appear that if anyone was to be punished it would be the worker whose recklessness caused the outbreak in the first instance. 

[Roger Mexico]

19 minutes ago, CowMan said:

Of course I’m just surprised that it isn’t to be a police investigation as all other cases involving the breaking of quarantine rules and government directions have been a matter for the police and the courts to deal with. As I said above I’m assuming that they dont want anyone ending up inside if that happens as without doubt there would likely be a strike amongst SPC workers concerned about future personal liabilities. But it seems to be that ignorance of the law has been no excuse for others up until now.

But the difference here surely is that this is a directive issued to a particular company, rather than a law that applies generally and which is (at least in theory) able to be known to all.  The legal liability then applies only to the company - I can't see how it could be passed onto individual employees, especially as criminal charges.