IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Gladys]

12 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.

Thanks for that perspective.  Is there a management supported and strong whistle blowing culture at DHSC?

[P.K.]

17 minutes ago, wrighty said:

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.  

Anything that comes at a cost means a case has to be made to justify the expenditure.

Now I obviously know nothing about your example but I have come across corporate drones, typically VPs, who don't like to admit they don't have much of a budget or rather don't have one at all...

[TerryFuchwit]

1 minute ago, Roxanne said:

I never heard of him until today but I saw the authenticity in his post. Steve has been used, (professionally of course), as has Rachel. Used in different ways of course.

They’re both good people I’m sure. 

Now of course, we will be ‘directed’ to see this as a he said she said issue and they will blow it up in order to keep us from the real issues that are going on. 

Well it was always destined to be a "he said she said" situation.

The reality is both sides with have their take on events.  It doesn't necessarily mean either are wrong.  Quite often the exact truth is in the middle.

[Numbnuts]

40 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

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.

We would have had results alot quicker though instead of going to Liverpool and the unexplained cases identified quicker . I said weeks ago on here when you go to war you take all the ammunition and assets you possibly can. We really dont know how much more Rachel could have helped as she wasnt allowed too. 

[Galen]

42 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.

'Them' would be the Department chaired by the Minister and attended by the Departmental Members (i.e. Politicians assigned to the Dept) and the various Heads of the Divisions. Depending on the decision to be taken, if it were political, then the Minister would have to sign off as legally he/she is accountable. For routine admin things the CEO can approve as long as there are no direct political implications that could backfire on the Minister/Members. The Minister is the quasi equivalent of a Chairman of a company in the private sector. Further, a IOM Govt Minister can decide which CEO he will will /will not work with especially when a IOM Govt CEO post falls vacant. Irrespective of who is the best candidate, if the sitting Minister does not like the best person as determined through interview / psychometric testing etc, he can state he wants "AN other" of those shortlisted and it goes to them - even although the Minister in rarely in a Dept more than a few years and the CEO can be there for decades! 

[Happier diner]

8 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

We would have had results alot quicker though instead of going to Liverpool and the unexplained cases identified quicker . I said weeks ago on here when you go to war you take all the ammunition and assets you possibly can. We really dont know how much more Rachel could have helped as she wasnt allowed too. 

Mmmmm. It's debatable. If you remember we were getting zeros and you can't sequence nothing. The reality is that the testing wasn't catching the positives. Again in my opinion that was the bigger issue. It was running in the community and we were unaware.

[Roger Mexico]

47 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.

[...] Steve is one of the good guys.

Yes it's interesting how good reputations get around - no one on here seemed to have accused him of being behind the threat, just assumed that it was either misunderstood or from someone higher up.  No one is shooting the messenger, just the message.  And of course Rachel's evidence gave at least one example when he had had the dirty done on him by his superiors.

[Banker]

Whilst a lot of time will be taken up in coming weeks with the Glover gate row, the massive list for endoscopy, 3000 for what can be a critical health check is more worrying for those on lists. Add the orthopedic & Cataract lists and it’s clear that unless you can go private you are going to be waiting a long time for what could be critical procedures .

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/3000-patients-waiting-for-endoscopy-procedure/

[madmanxpilot]

 

On 4/2/2021 at 11:12 AM, Terminal said:

Isn’t one of those two Jet Ski man’s Mrs?

 

On 4/2/2021 at 12:05 PM, madmanxpilot said:

Same name, same age, from same area. 

It made the national press too.

https://mol.im/a/9432747

Edited April 3, 2021 by madmanxpilot

[rachomics]

I think I really have to point out here that the instructions for the aggressive and inconsistent legal letters stating the DHSC position are coming from the Path Lab. Kathryn Magson and the AG's office didn't write them without significant input from the Path lab.

If it isn't Steve Doyle providing those instructions in his capacity as head of the lab (and as a very senior DHSC/Manx Care manager) then that in itself would be a very interesting question for the PAC inquiry to ask. There isn't anyone else I can think of in the "chain of command" that would be providing the detailed versions of events as instructions for the DHSC lawyers/AG.

Edited April 3, 2021 by rachomics
typos

[Gladys]

41 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

 

 

It made the national press too.

https://mol.im/a/9432747

As my Gran would say, (God rest her soul),  "she's a right piece of work"!

[Barlow]

  

2 hours ago, wrighty said:

.

Steve is one of the good guys.

 

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

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

All we need now is one from Dilli and that's the references sorted.

[finlo]

2 hours ago, finlo said:

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by finlo

[Pipsqueak]

so who is Dr G claiming nicked her software then  ?     i did find the line in SD's first post   ' because of the external and political nonsense.'   line quite amusing as there is zero mention  if internal nonsense ??  what a perfect hospital we must have

[Banker]

On a positive note 1 linked case today and still 4 in hospital 😀