Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Roger Mexico]

7 minutes ago, Barlow said:

One thing that the FOI request brought out was that the letter was destroyed. David Ashford is wondering why anyone would want to see a redacted letter which he said was read out in full.

That emphasises just how stupid destroying the letter was.  They could have just issued the text which had been read out and redacted anything else.  Josem didn't ask for a photo of the original or anything - text is normally all you get with an FoI.

Now they have to pretend that destroying was normal, even compulsory.  Which makes no sense and could even be illegal in some circumstances.  They just don't know how to stop digging.

[rachomics]

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

[Andy Onchan]

I wonder if the Minister ever considered sharing the contents of the letter with the political members of DHSC before he shredded it? If he had then surely one of them would be able to verify that both the contents and sender were bona fide?

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

Responsibility remains with Minister Ashford who published it by reading it out. The writer only published it to Ashford. Ashford published it to the world. Guess which attracts the most damages, if it’s defamatory, which I doubt.

[rachomics]

19 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Ms Glover following her flounce and histrionics has been welcomed back into the fold.

Lets all move on

I hate to sound like such a bitch, but it's Dr. Glover to you. Anyone else can call me Rachel. 

The interesting point that you don't seem to have realised is that I resigned. It's now the DHSC who are contacting me to get my services back after they realised my skills were required after all. 

[jaymann]

I'm not one for blowing anyones trumpet usually, but I think we should appreciate that @rachomics is even prepared to come back to the table after all the going on. Even if they want her first child and to plant a chip in her, she's still prepared to consider it.

To me? Kudos to her. Most of us would tell them where to shove it. I don't believe she's doing so strictly for commercial gain and moreso for the benefit of our Island.

[piebaps]

Gluffy the vampire slayer

[Roger Mexico]

5 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

I'm not sure that it is libellous anyway (I think speech become libel if transmitted or recorded electronically) because the letter was mainly whingeing about how the media were reporting your contribution rather than the much more essential one of the the Assistant Deputy DHSC Paperclip Manager or whoever wrote it.  Jealousy may be unpleasant to be on the receiving end of, but it isn't a crime.

Of course Moulton and the rest of the media are keeping on about this ridiculous letter because it was dissing them as well.  But it shouldn't be forgotten that the most important point here is the one you made that triggered all this - that scientific input should be at the heart of assessing any measures that are taken.

[Barlow]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Responsibility remains with Minister Ashford who published it by reading it out. The writer only published it to Ashford. Ashford published it to the world. Guess which attracts the most damages, if it’s defamatory, which I doubt.

I am sure you are right, but to be sure one would need to know what was said or intended to be said in the missing 20 seconds.

 

[jaymann]

16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Responsibility remains with Minister Ashford who published it by reading it out. The writer only published it to Ashford. Ashford published it to the world. Guess which attracts the most damages, if it’s defamatory, which I doubt.

One thing that I keep hearing is some confusion from Ashford. If you rewatch the Moulton piece yesterday he stated multiple times that he was asked to read it out by the author

 But I seem to recall him saying previously that he called the person up asking if he could read it out.

It is clear that someone briefed DA to read it out when the opportunity arises during the briefing. He didn't help himself by picking the wrong opportunity to trigger it.

Edited November 22, 2020 by jaymann

[Apple]

 

It sets an important precedent though.

If politicians can destroy documents their Departments policies say should be kept (as I pointed out ) without any challenge from other politicians or civil servants then they all might as well just go home.  Policies are meant to be adhered to by all, not just the public.

Very unsatisfactory state of affairs. 

[TheTeapot]

18 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

While the letter is total bollocks, I don't think it was slanderous. It was more 'it's not just her (you) there's a team'. That's kind of the whole point. Even though the point is daft.

Obviously I'm not the person the letter is aimed at though so you may consider it differently.

You said a while ago words to the effect of "they're being pricks about it and I'm calling them out" (I can't be arsed going looking for the actual quote) and I'm delighted that you're sticking to it. 

[TheTeapot]

Everyone should be asking their MHK, by letter, if their letter will be 'destroyed' and when.

[Roger Mexico]

34 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Furthermore, I do not believe the whole letter was read out, or rather broadcast.

If you watch the relevant part of the briefing, when questions start (click below) you will not that there is a cut/freeze in transmission for about 30 seconds in total. (at about 19:46) and a little further along there is another cut. 

So there are sections of the reading out of this letter that were not broadcast. 

So - another very good reason to ask to see the letter, or for that matter, just the text of the body.

 

Have you compared that to the segment that Moulton has on his YouTube (it was his question after all)?  Presumably he records it separately.

Also the FoI reply now contains a transcription of the letter (with a few inaudible bits), so it would be interesting to compare it to reality.  It's on the FoI Search with the title "Anonymous letter from press conference 30 October 2020" and submission date of 02/11/20 as a separate file: Letter to Minister - Transcription.pdf.pdf.

[PaulJ]

39 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I hate to sound like such a bitch

No no no,pompous or egotistical is much more accurate.