Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[TerryFuchwit]

2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It was, but he didn’t know it was.

This is an MHK representing us on the world stage.

Scary, when you think about it.

 

World stage?  Lol

RC is a parish pump politician which he's actually doing the right things for.  He will get elected back in, this September.

[quilp]

10 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Rob Callister has absolutely zero influence or ability to threaten anything.

Yes Tel, I know. It's more him extending a notional threat and consequence by suggestion one exists. 

[Apple]

https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-GD-0007.pdf

This is the report from the Whistleblowing Committee that went to Tynwald last year.

There is sufficient in there to support Rachael in making a Public Interest Disclosure. The case the Committee heard where someone had to mortgage their house (I know Racheal may not have to) and the fact he won, and handsomely, supports now the prospects fort others to come forward.

Racheal did right and I admire her for her honesty, in bringing certain matters into the open (toxic culture in DHSC) but also in her restraint. There is a lot more that she could have said. Anybody connected with Nobles knows this.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Apple
typo sorry

[Non-Believer]

6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

This is true, but it is very likely that he has had a few 'stern talkings to' behind the scenes, so maybe that's what he means. Like being sent to the headmasters office.

RC is not influencing or threatening anybody but he could be construed as warning that others could be.

Plus there is an apparently an almost unlimited supply of public money for these people to defend their egos, images and flawed policies, even if comes to legal shenanigans. Look around, it's everywhere, Central Govt, DBC, other LAs.

[asitis]

At the risk of repeating myself again, as I posted many moths ago and subsequently, this supports entirely what I was told by someone who does know, that there are a very nasty cabal of people towards the top of the DHSC and this cabal have caused a number of good people to fail to steer the ship and subsequently left.

[Gladys]

20 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Rob Callister has absolutely zero influence or ability to threaten anything.

 

Interesting position to take on an MHK.  Aren't they supposed to have influence, or else why have them?  Like him or not, and I have no strong feelings about him other than his self-publicity, but as an MHK he should have influence.  It may not be sufficient to affect Comin decisions, but to discount him as irrelevant is to disenfranchise him and his constituents.  

That attitude is another manifestation of the cliquey way government operates. 

[Pipsqueak]

29 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

 

She is brave tho. We’ve all seen what has happened to others who have tried to open eyes to what is going on.  I suppose that’s what Rob meant. 

yes, Roly Drower springs to mind.   'money talks' they say , more like  money stops talk

Edited April 5, 2021 by Pipsqueak

[Boo Gay'n]

14 minutes ago, asitis said:

At the risk of repeating myself again, as I posted many moths ago and subsequently, this supports entirely what I was told by someone who does know, that there are a very nasty cabal of people towards the top of the DHSC and this cabal have caused a number of good people to fail to steer the ship and subsequently left.

...and presumably they have just moved across to Manx Care and will continue to manipulate it for their own interests as if nothing has changed?

[Apple]

 

2 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

...and presumably they have just moved across to Manx Care and will continue to manipulate it for their own interests as if nothing has changed?

Some have been ousted encouraged to seek other avenues for their skills, and recently too. Some have been moved sideways and some have been promoted I hear.Some haver resigned.

There has been something seriously wrong in the DHSC stretching back to Charters, and it has never been dealt with effectively. It has constantly been referred to as 'cultural' problems or 'silo working' - both terms that mean very little in terms of human behaviour when you get down to it.

Rumours of meetings where people are 'abused', shouted down, made to look foolish, reputations trashed behind people's backs - its all there. What should have happened, and there was plenty of scope for it, was a root and brach investigation and review of where this was being driven from. Some people I imagine felt that they had power and that this was unaccountable. 

It wasn't. 

If you want to collate a history @quilp of those who have come and gone in the last 5 or so years , and more importantly why, then there might be more understanding of where Rachel is coming from. And what can be done about it.

There might actually be those who could support her comments about her experiences by what they have seen up close and / or  experienced themselves.

If more people came forward, and I would support it as I have done in the past, then the comments from Rachael actually begin to make more sense. And by the way, I  have never met the woman. Good on her for exposing what she has. Some people will be quietly clapping. 

 

[Pipsqueak]

41 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

That may be exactly what he is, but that is not the criteria he was voted in on. I was illustrating the gulf between the two. Thank you for explaining it all over again for anyone who may have missed it  

Of course he’ll get voted back in again and a promotion too, no doubt. He’s toed the line and apart from the odd gaff (like this one) he’s caused them no grief. And that’s what it’s all about. 

odd gaff ???   you might need your toes as well.

[quilp]

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

Some have been moved sideways and some have been promoted I hear. Some have resigned.

Common practice. I've seen quite a few come and go, usually good people eventually too frustrated at not being able to make a positive difference.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

There has been something seriously wrong in the DHSC stretching back to Charters, and it has never been dealt with effectively.

Further back than Charters, the reason why it's so difficult to induce change is because of an entrenched ideology.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

It has constantly been referred to as 'cultural' problems or 'silo working' - both terms that mean very little in terms of human behaviour when you get down to it.

I beg to differ, those terms describe a great deal. I prefer 'group think' myself, and a climate of fear that keeps people in their place.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

Rumours of meetings where people are 'abused', shouted down, made to look foolish, reputations trashed behind people's backs - its all there.

Very true. I've seen it and experienced it. There's a big problem with the plethora of 'smiling assassins' in middle-management. I think RG has unwittingly been a victim of this cancel culture; too trusting on face-value.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

What should have happened, and there was plenty of scope for it, was a root and brach investigation and review of where this was being driven from.

I'd agree, but there's an insidious level of protectionism of position and self-regard.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

Some people I imagine felt that they had power and that this was unaccountable.

I'd agree here also. Power and influence together. All very underhand and undermining the confidence of any challenge to the status quo is a well-used tactic.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

If you want to collate a history @quilp of those who have come and gone in the last 5 or so years , and more importantly why...

That would really be an almost impossible task. From the coalface through to the higher echelons so many have come and gone for a variety of reasons. And there's been a considerable amount of talent and resource ignored and cast aside for all the reasons being discussed. Many departed out of sheer frustration once becoming aware of the culture. And there have been those who didn't leave and became part of the structure, using it too their advantage.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

...then there might be more understanding of where Rachel is coming from. And what can be done about it.

I'd say there is an understanding of what happened to Rachel and where she is coming from but much less of an inclination to do anything about it. Don't threaten the status quo by taking sides. The far-reaching consequences of alliance would make your life hell. No one wants to be cast into the wilderness by speaking their mind, this is something you learn very early on.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

There might actually be those who could support her comments about her experiences by what they have seen up close and/or experienced themselves.

It's a nice thought but once again no one would want to jeopardise their position, or advancement by speaking out and projecting alliances when there's so much at stake.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

If more people came forward, and I would support it as I have done in the past, then the comments from Rachel actually begin to make more sense...

Ain't gonna happen. Even if it did, the testimony of the experiences of others would carry no weight nor hold water. You cannot criticise government publicy if you're employed by them. There would be consequences. This deters employees from speaking out.

37 minutes ago, Apple said:

And by the way, I have never met the woman. Good on her for exposing what she has. Some people will be quietly clapping.

She has exposed something, but expecting Joe Public to understand just what it is she's exposed is another matter. Docile Manxies are rarely up for a challenge and the brave few who clamour for solid accountability and openness are met with little enthusiasm and there is a majority out there who appear to have a great deal of support for this administration. Whatever the outward appearance of political modernity presents, politically we're still a nation of disinterested cap-doffers and forelock-tuggers to authority, who prefer the decisions are made by someone else. 

[Annoymouse]

 

[Declan]

Ashford on PAC

https://youtube.com/channel/UC8oEW0tnsdNDX715eCpu11g

Seems to imply Rachel damaged the other robot’s software. And the letter was apparently in praise of Rachel. 
 

[Boris Johnson]

9 minutes ago, Declan said:

Ashford on PAC

https://youtube.com/channel/UC8oEW0tnsdNDX715eCpu11g

Seems to imply Rachel damaged the other robot’s software. And the letter was apparently in praise of Rachel. 
 

Not very plausible in my opinion, I have very specialised software with my own modifications.

I have it on the main PC in the office but I also have several copies backed up in different locations inc the cloud.

Who doesn't do that?

[Pipsqueak]

so greenhow is responsible for something then ?? somebody in government actually responsible for something ??   i need a drink.