IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Utah 01]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the politicians can choose who they listen and where they get their information from. 

Alas, most of our councilors have neither the experience nor intelligence to do so.  That is why the CS and cadre of professionals in government can run rings around them.  It's really quite alarming that we have to put up with our lives and the future of the Island being dictated by amateurs and manipulators.

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well of course they do and so they ought to.  The point is that they are very well paid to get things right, it's literally their job.  To demand that they be praised for doing it OK some of the time, isn't just a very low bar, it basically admits that they're not up to doing their job.

And given that self-promotion and self-praise is one of the few things they seem to be experts in, I'm not sure they need our help

I was referring to the gang attack on @VOICE OF REASONreally, he does seem to stand up for the government's side frequently and it might be thought that he's a PS. I don't think he is but he is entitled to his opinion like anyone else. I just don't see any need for personal attacks on posters, play the ball and not the man.

[Utah 01]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

I'd go full on Stalin and start purging

I'm more than happy to volunteer for the role.

[the stinking enigma]

.

Edited April 3, 2021 by the stinking enigma

[Kopek]

38 minutes ago, piebaps said:

now apparently an anti-semite and a misongynist too.

I think you need new reading glasses?

[code99]

6 hours ago, Steve Doyle said:

For the record, I never and would never threaten anyone with negative press, I’m really not that type of person and definitely not powerful enough. The meeting with Rachel ended with a hug and she e-mailed me the next day saying ‘thanks for the talk’. She was a friend and colleague and it’s terribly sad that it has come to this.

Keeping in mind that Dr Glover has a legal advice before giving her testimony to the PAC, I'm sure that her account of the conversation with Steve Doyle and how she felt about that conversation was very deliberate:

"Steve Doyle came to start negotiating about the role going back. He decided to say at one point – “You do realise if you don’t come back and do everything, we want you to, we’ll put negative press out about you. I thought I’m not going to be blackmailed. It was a rubbish job spec that wasn’t clear." 

I think it would be very helpful if Mr Doyle clarified why he felt that he needed to go and see Dr Glover and also if anyone else had told him to do this. If the job spec was 'rubbish' as Dr Glover claims, could the main issues have been sorted out remotely? Why did he feel it was necessary to make a personal appearance? 

It is highly likely that Mr Doyle was never on his own able to and certainly not powerful enough to instigate a 'negative press' campaign against Dr Glover. It seems much more likely that if this campaign was planned, it involved other more powerful people than himself. Was he therefore 'sent' by others to intimidate Dr Glover? Whatever the actual details, this kind of bulling is utterly unacceptable in any work place, let alone in the IOMG department.

It appears that now the DHSC intend to write a rebuttal of Dr Glover's testimony. It would be interesting to see if they provide any evidence or just make counter-claims.

I hate to say it,  but I have heard from a number of people that their dealings with the DHSC have been very frustrating - they felt as if they were dealing with incompetent/sloppy/unprofessional staff who were bristling with hubris and self-importance.

I beleive that an independent Public investigation conducted by external persons (not by our local 'yes men/women') should be held so that this sorry saga never happens again.   

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by code99

[Dr. Grumpy]

I agree; Doyle would not have said this unless he was pressured to, from high above

[Sheldon]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

I agree; Doyle would not have said this unless he was pressured to, from high above

He maintains, quite clearly and emphatically, that he didn't say it at all.

[quilp]

And so it begins:- the, 'he said she said' scenario, destined to drag on for long months. It is what is provable that matters, the nitty-gritty. With so much hearsay being touted it will be too easy for this 'affair' to become distracted, bogged-down in minutiae and deliberately elaborated obfuscation when it is the facts which matter.

[Numbnuts]

As far as I'm concerned I dont give a toss about ego's and the likes which clearly have played a part in all this . What concerns me is whats best for the population of the IOM . Would we have been better served with Dr Glover on board for the whole journey or not ? . From my little knowledge and having followed this throughout it seems a no brainer and we needed her expertise from day one and to this day. Ego's often have to take a back seat for the greater good but looks like CS and Government are to entrenched in there habits of a lifetime to step back. Quite sad really and also being that its probably made us all suffer more than we needed also incompetent on many levels too.   

Edited April 3, 2021 by Numbnuts

[Happier diner]

32 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

As far as I'm concerned I dont give a toss about ego's and the likes which clearly have played a part in all this . What concerns me is whats best for the population of the IOM . Would we have been better served with Dr Glover on board for the whole journey or not ? . From my little knowledge and having followed this throughout it seems a no brainer and we needed her expertise from day one and to this day. Ego's often have to take a back seat for the greater good but looks like CS and Government are to entrenched in there habits of a lifetime to step back. Quite sad really and also being that its probably made us all suffer more than we needed also incompetent on many levels too.   

Whilst you are of course correct that it helps to have all the talent you have available, and the whole saga is a mess, can we really say, hand on heart that things would have been that much different. We would still have had the 3 lockdowns imho.

Saying that, with the significance of the variants increasing as the prevalence of the virus reduces does,again imho, start to justify knowing the strains as quickly as possible and 2 weeks is just rubbish.

[wrighty]

21 hours ago, Gladys said:

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

Re the negative press thing. I know Steve Doyle, and either know, or know of the people who are (or in some cases, were) higher up the food chain.  I’ve also met and chatted to Rachel a fair bit.

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  
 

Steve is one of the good guys.

[Dirty Buggane]

Incompetence. The highest qualification for a chief minister/civil service senior member. Oh and a thick skin.

[finlo]

2 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Incompetence. The highest qualification for a chief minister/civil service senior member. Oh and a thick skin.

And an even thicker skull!

Edited April 3, 2021 by finlo

[thommo2010]

8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Re the negative press thing. I know Steve Doyle, and either know, or know of the people who are (or in some cases, were) higher up the food chain.  I’ve also met and chatted to Rachel a fair bit.

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  
 

Steve is one of the good guys.

I've known Steve for years and as you say he is one of the good guys.