Non-Believer Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 53 minutes ago, 2112 said: I’m going for someone being made a scapegoat or taking one for the team, followed by an eye watering payoff (early retirement, compo and make a problem disappear). Everyone has a price if the price is right. Come on down ……….. Nobody will be made a scapegoat of, or take one for the team, at least certainly not publicly. Early retirements and glowing commendations with undisclosed golden handshakes would be order of the day and six months later their names would virtually have been forgotten by the masses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Case rested m’lud. Who specifically told them (Manx Crews) to crack on, exempt from isolating? On who’s authority was that instruction received? Shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 There are some recurring themes - somebody summarising reports for submission to Comin, presumably whoever did so understands shipping industry practice, IMO, etc, the lack of testing and useful guidance. I won't mention genomics, but he did! Given that the boat is our lifeline, you would have thought somebody would have been 'on the case' and almost sitting alongside the SP. What is also curious is that he didn't look at the detail of the directives, perhaps someone else in the SP did, but that is a bit of a concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Rushen Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 All this talk of the Indian variant..... when all the time we have had the Cowboy variant.! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Even if government thought the crew members were self isolating between shifts, did they really thing that their families wouldn't leave the house for over a year? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 On 4/21/2021 at 11:02 AM, b4mbi said: Clearly these two new cases are a "Manx Variant" , but shouldn't be a cause for concern as it'll be resistant to further change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 29 minutes ago, Gladys said: Given that the boat is our lifeline, you would have thought somebody would have been 'on the case' and almost sitting alongside the SP. What is also curious is that he didn't look at the detail of the directives, perhaps someone else in the SP did, but that is a bit of a concern. Exactly. I think that Mr Woodward's admission that it was solely assumption rather than confirmation of understanding and compliance is the root of the issue. That really is inexcusable. Mark Woodward: "I must make it clear that I didn’t sit and look at these legal documents, I was sure that we knew what we were doing and the gov knew what we were doing. When I delved into the details, I was astonished". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 31 minutes ago, Roxanne said: Do you think calling COMIN, COMEN was a mistake? I bet it wasn't. 🤣 And I noticed another mistake there I think...Dan Davies.. CEO? A DJ with no real work/life experience...PR based CV? Supposedly a BA? Put in charge of reducing govt headcount and it increased? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: Exactly. I think that Mr Woodward's admission that it was solely assumption rather than confirmation of understanding and compliance is the root of the issue. That really is inexcusable. Mark Woodward: "I must make it clear that I didn’t sit and look at these legal documents, I was sure that we knew what we were doing and the gov knew what we were doing. When I delved into the details, I was astonished". This is mental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: Exactly. I think that Mr Woodward's admission that it was solely assumption rather than confirmation of understanding and compliance is the root of the issue. That really is inexcusable. Mark Woodward: "I must make it clear that I didn’t sit and look at these legal documents, I was sure that we knew what we were doing and the gov knew what we were doing. When I delved into the details, I was astonished". Yes, given shipping is highly regulated, you would think that the directives would be closely studied. They may have been by someone else, and there may be an explanation that they felt more bound by IMO than specific, unclear IOM directives. The overriding message though is that communication and consultation was poor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, Gladys said: Yes, given shipping is highly regulated, you would think that the directives would be closely studied. They may have been by someone else, and there may be an explanation that they felt more bound by IMO than specific, unclear IOM directives. The overriding message though is that communication and consultation was poor. It's shambolic. IOMG issued legal instructions, IOMSPCo didn't bother reading them because they thought they know what they contained, IOMG didn't ensure that they are complied with. Additionally, there were several statements made by Mr Woodward today stating that IOMG knew the direction notices weren't being complied with and that they did nothing about it. It's really indefensible if true. No matter how difficult it was to address, it should have been. Because it wasn't, people died. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. Those that were jailed for breaches found that out the hard way. They have every right to be enraged by this apparent corporate duplicity. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsmeee Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 I don’t think the IOM government comes out of this at all well. They’re either really stupid or guilty of lack of oversight and possibly telling 🐷 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 20 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: It's shambolic. IOMG issued legal instructions, IOMSPCo didn't bother reading them because they thought they know what they contained, IOMG didn't ensure that they are complied with. Additionally, there were several statements made by Mr Woodward today stating that IOMG knew the direction notices weren't being complied with and that they did nothing about it. It's really indefensible if true. No matter how difficult it was to address, it should have been. Because it wasn't, people died. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. Those that were jailed for breaches found that out the hard way. They have every right to be enraged by this apparent corporate duplicity. Agreed. The long chain of communication between the MD of the island's lifeline and the decision makers is concerning. Even if the SP wasn't publicly owned, that is a concern, strategically. For some reason, the SP was not taken into the inner sanctum, yet it was critical to our response on so many levels. If you were putting together an emergency response team, wouldn't you include your primary logistics service provider? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, Gladys said: Agreed. The long chain of communication between the MD of the island's lifeline and the decision makers is concerning. Even if the SP wasn't publicly owned, that is a concern, strategically. For some reason, the SP was not taken into the inner sanctum, yet it was critical to our response on so many levels. If you were putting together an emergency response team, wouldn't you include your primary logistics service provider? Well the make up of the emergency advisory committee said it all, co heads Magson & greenhow with no external advisors. They finally advertised for external advisory in April after Tynwald request’ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 4 minutes ago, Banker said: Well the make up of the emergency advisory committee said it all, co heads Magson & greenhow with no external advisors. They finally advertised for external advisory in April after Tynwald request’ Well quite. Still doesn't explain whether the directives were read and where there was a lack of clarity, challenged. Why weren't the SP on the inside? Was it a mistaken desire to maintain Chinese walls? Was it a belief that they had nothing to offer other than doing as they were told? Just very disappointing and costly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.