IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

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.

To be honest I was mainly pointing to a recent tendency of the AG's Office to use liability as the latest 'Health and Safety' or 'GDPR' - as an excuse for not doing something that you ought to do or at least to slow things down as a way of throwing your weight around.   Obviously sorting out liability is important but it's not something that needs to be negotiated from scratch every time and there are legal precedents over what are reasonable terms whatever the wording is (which is what I think Rachel was hinting in the reference to ticking the box on agreements with Apple etc).

Both the AG's Office and the DHSC seem to have mainly operated on the principle of leaving things to the last minute or beyond - sometimes to point of recklessness or damage - and then trying to impose whatever arbitrary solution they want on the ground there is no time to sort things out properly.  It's all incredibly unprofessional, with bullying taking the place of argument, and shows how their idea of public service is that the public are there to serve them.

[Roger Mexico]

20 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Got to go back to that 'we'll put out negative press' thing by Steve Doyle. Seriously, what kind of fucking behaviour is that?

Apart from anything else, anyone in the Manx media ought to stop and consider just what that says about how government regards them - as willing patsies who will put repeat whatever nonsense is put out unquestioningly.

Rachel was clearly shocked by this encounter, not least because it came from someone who she clearly had worked well with and regarded as a friend.  Of course we don't know from how high up the instructions to bully her this way came.  This is really a toxic organisation.

[Kopek]

What we don't know is the context of what he said, did he mean it as a threat or as a warning to a friend?

Had he heard it from above? He's only a dept head, would he have the power or desire do such a thing?

Obviously further PAC meetings with such witnesses are in order.

[quilp]

Great post Roger. "Toxic" is right on the mark. 

[Utah 01]

39 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Both the AG's Office and the DHSC seem to have mainly operated on the principle of leaving things to the last minute or beyond

In recent dealings with AG and DHSC that is EXACTLY how they operate.  In any other set-up it would be gross incompetence and the post holders rewarded appropriately with a P45.

But fear not - 'the Isle of Man (government), freedom to flourish if you are completely useless'

[doc.fixit]

But nothing changes, twenty years ago I ended up arguing a particular case in Tynwald court and a certain MHK as they walked out for recess muttered, 'You've got no fucking chance'. As it happens he was wrong!

[Major Rushen]

No new cases today.

[Banker]

1 hour ago, Nomadic Raptor said:

So can someone explain the rules of this lockdown I missed the part when it was said it was ok to play a football match at the bowl 

Absolutely packed everywhere today, BBQs going & music blasting out . Surprised they allowed 10 from different household to meet outside.

sports allowed outside but maximum 10

Edited April 2, 2021 by Banker

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, Nomadic Raptor said:

So can someone explain the rules of this lockdown I missed the part when it was said it was ok to play a football match at the bowl 

As long as its its 10 or less people its fine

[Nomadic Raptor]

So organized activities are now allowed??     Anyone fancy a swim in laxey tomorrow 😂

[finlo]

I've just been out to go to the shop and you'd swear it was a bank holiday!

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

What we don't know is the context of what he said, did he mean it as a threat or as a warning to a friend?

Had he heard it from above? He's only a dept head, would he have the power or desire do such a thing?

Obviously further PAC meetings with such witnesses are in order.

If he said "they" rather than "we", it could be interpreted as a friendly warning. 

[Annoymouse]

11 minutes ago, Banker said:

Absolutely packed everywhere today, BBQs going & music blasting out . Surprised they allowed 10 from different household to meet outside.

sports allowed outside but maximum 10

If we don’t have a shit load of new cases in a weeks time I’ll be absolutely amazed, never seen it so busy, my neighbours are in their summerhouse/shed with their guests, it’s stretching the definition of outside but I imagine plenty of others will be doing the same.

[Banker]

6 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

If we don’t have a shit load of new cases in a weeks time I’ll be absolutely amazed, never seen it so busy, my neighbours are in their summerhouse/shed with their guests, it’s stretching the definition of outside but I imagine plenty of others will be doing the same.

Most I saw were outside, I went to my Mums and we just sat in garden, 2m away which was a bit difficult to hear with all the noisy lot having BBQs!!

[Gladys]

What strikes me about this whole situation is that it seems nobody involved on the  IOMG side seems to have had the interests of the island at heart.  I would very much want to know what the initial motivation was to start what seems to have started as management incompetence (basis of her engagement) but rapidly seemed to slide into a personal attack on her. 

Was it when she voiced disquiet about covid policies being written without her or the lab's input ? They were being written by people with no medical or scientific background.

We had a similar instance with the potential for prosecution in the SP fiasco.  No legal input, just the view of officers. 

Then there is the potentially defamatory email which is currently the subject of a data subject access request. 

From what she said about the software copying, it seems there can be no reasonable explanation- what was copied was her coding and she says she is confident she can prove that. 

What reasonable and sustainable defence could there be to any of these issues?