IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Terminal]

So the moral of the story is..never try to help the Isle of Man government?

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Terminal said:

So the moral of the story is..never try to help the Isle of Man government?

Sad  isn't it? 

[slinkydevil]

Ego.

[daisy]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I suppose there was also an issue of dealing with liability which would have been covered in the licence.

Throughout her evidence, I heard two overriding requirements, recognition and limitation of liability.  At no point did she indicate that she was trying to financially exploit this, but she wanted her costs covered and to limit liability. Not a grasping or unreasonable position, and entirely consistent with a desire to help 

+1

[Roger Mexico]

8 hours ago, Apple said:

Then she talked about being nominated for some sort of island person of interest award which had a glowing reference and then it was taken down from her Twitter account but by Who ?

It wasn't taken down from her Twitter account, it's still there, but she said the nomination itself had mysteriously disappeared from the website or Facebook.  It actually looks as if all the 'news' section has been deleted, which rather contradicts the whole 'we want to celebrate all these people' vibe. 

The 'Extraordinary People' awards were run by Isle of Man Advertising and they clearly didn't want anyone who did anything controversial going forward to the public vote and upsetting anyone.  So it's all rainbows and cupcakes and determinedly trying to avoid reality.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I suppose there was also an issue of dealing with liability which would have been covered in the licence.

Throughout her evidence, I heard two overriding requirements, recognition and limitation of liability.  At no point did she indicate that she was trying to financially exploit this, but she wanted her costs covered and to limit liability. Not a grasping or unreasonable position, and entirely consistent with a desire to help 

I think the limitation of liability was more about reacting to the obsession of the Government, and especially the AG's Office, about it.  If the the people you are dealing with are demanding you are responsible for everything, even stuff you have no control over or knowledge of, then you're going to get cautious very quickly.

Of course we've seen similar things with the vaccines.  I suspect it's as much about the government lawyers wanting to show they are doing their jobs by stopping other people doing theirs, as it is about protecting the government or making sure things operate properly.

[Gladys]

You may be right, but being aware of and limiting your liability is good commercial practice, IMHO  and my observation was in no way a criticism of Dr Glover.  It is a commercial reality. 

Also, I suspect the vaccine issue was about the indemnity from UKG and, again, I believe it was right to get it right.  They just should have got it right quicker.

[The Duck of Atholl]

One thing i did pick up on reading the transcript was that Dr Glover  at one point says that the AG's pushed back on her contract and she follows it up by saying words to the effect of that you don't negotiate with Apple. Therefore it may have been that some of the contract terms were considered onerous.

I would expect the AG's to question any contract terms it considers to be onerous and highlight them to it's client department.

 

[asitis]

1 hour ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

One thing i did pick up on reading the transcript was that Dr Glover  at one point says that the AG's pushed back on her contract and she follows it up by saying words to the effect of that you don't negotiate with Apple. Therefore it may have been that some of the contract terms were considered onerous.

I would expect the AG's to question any contract terms it considers to be onerous and highlight them to it's client department.

 

It would be ironic, if the first time in living memory financial terms were the stumbling block, and the AG's were concerned re public money. A bad time to become so imo.

[Banker]

Changing the subject from Glover gate, looks like UK will introduce traffic light system for foreign travel, we should use similar for uk travel as Channel Islands use.

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/analysis-says-12-countries-could-be-open-to-uk-holidaymakers-from-may-17

[The Duck of Atholl]

22 minutes ago, asitis said:

It would be ironic, if the first time in living memory financial terms were the stumbling block, and the AG's were concerned re public money. A bad time to become so imo.

Any commercial lawyer, AG's included, may have little or nothing to say on the actual price at the outset (that is really the client's responsibility) but more on the ability of the supplier to vary the price, the product, the terms of the contract or the termination provisions of the contract ( can the supplier cut you off at the dtop of a hat or are you tied in forever and a day?)

The lawyers don't control the purse strings but the client will be very quick yo throw them under a bus if they don't raise these points and the client gets burned.

[Pipsqueak]

10 hours ago, Johnny F said:

Quayle is either misinformed or a total knob head,

i'm sure he can be both.

[Happier diner]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

As I have said, no one denies the existence of a piece of paper, but whether it was in fact what it was purported to be will never be established because it no longer exists. 

So, we don't know if it was all it was said to be, or if DA was the victim of a fabrication or if someone else was. 

The point is, its use was a trigger point in the deterioration of relations. I am not sure DA was attacked over DrGlover's status, but his ire should have been directed at HR who had apparently  misinformed him.

In the grown up world, it was foolish and unforgiveable. 

That's correct and a good point. The whole lettergate was a misjudgement regardless of its intention.

If you were a generous sort, you might say Ashford read it to reassure the nation that we had staff adequately trained and skilled to carry out the testing.

But others might conclude that it was a childish attempt to discredit. 

The likelihood is, that there was letter. I cant imagine an outright lie. We may never know, but as we agree, that's not the point is it?

[Happier diner]

10 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

They are actually on record as saying exactly that. Well, at least Dr Ewart said that on behalf of the government.

Shame on you. That was a totally different context and  circumstance. Below the belt and factually incorrect. 

You discredit yourself sir.

[the stinking enigma]

Those 2 posts are all you take out of recent events? The shame is on you sir,