rachomics Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Annoymouse said: Wow, for the first time ever I’ve found myself agreeing with T.V.O.R, I agree 100%, don’t ever sell yourself short, it would be like selling your soul to the devil. That's why I have lawyers. They make sure I'm not selling my soul to the devil. Everything that has been stated in the last few hours is hypothetical and not the reality of the current situation. The current situation is that the Health Minister is commenting on legal correspondence he hasn't gotten to grips with and a PAC inquiry which is about genomics, but the reality is that availability of on-Island genomics is intertwined with how Taxa have been treated by the DHSC. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, rachomics said: From my point of view, if the DHSC wanted to keep me quiet with cash (i.e. gagging order, compensation for libel, I win a civil case in the future where the DHSC is shown to be in the wrong) then that money is not mine and should be used for good, not personal gain. Argue against that all you want. We weren’t talking about money won in a legal case but hush money. Obviously if you did come into money as a result of a legal case then it is yours to spend as you choose. I wouldn’t argue about that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 1 hour ago, Pipsqueak said: the establishment 1 hour ago, Numbnuts said: My thoughts also . I dont know RG but I like her lots for having the bottle to stand up to establishment . Paging @piebapsto thread 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 9 hours ago, Annoymouse said: 5:15... he nearly said "pissed off" there 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Well in that case I'm sure that Minister Ashford will come into work tomorrow and tell those people he was planning to have working on the point-by-point 'rebuttal' (he wouldn't lie to us about giving them the weekend off I'm sure) and get them back to whatever they were doing to put an end to the pandemic. Well no. He has a duty to put his the Government/ his side of things. If someone said that the Government were killing all first born children the Government would be remiss in not rebutting that. Would you expect anything less? Its unfortunate that we have to deal with this sort of stuff now when there are so many more important things going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindJammer Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 8 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Wow, for the first time ever I’ve found myself agreeing with T.V.O.R, I agree 100%, don’t ever sell yourself short, it would be like selling your soul to the devil. How do you expect litigation going to occur following the PAC disclosures? The platform which Glover supplied her responses to benefits from legal privilege. They can’t actually sue her for any allegations or comments she made as the disclosures to the PAC were protected. However after a rebuttal statement what they now may well choose to do is offer her money for any potential case to go away as they may not want her repeating what was said without similar legal privilege in a court of law if that ends up the next stage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 Just now, Tricky said: 5:15... he nearly said "pissed off" there Wouldn’t blame him for a minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 1 minute ago, WindJammer said: How do you expect litigation going to occur following the PAC disclosures? The platform which Glover supplied her responses to benefits from legal privilege. They can’t actually sue her for any allegations or comments she made as the disclosures to the PAC were protected. However after a rebuttal statement what they now may well choose to do is offer her money for any potential case to go away as they may not want her repeating what was said without similar legal privilege in a court of law if that ends up the next stage. Sometimes yes money is offered as an alternative to going to court and all the expense involved and the thing dragging on even though you think your cause is right. I would be very disappointed if the Government went down this road in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Sometimes yes money is offered as an alternative to going to court and all the expense involved and the thing dragging on even though you think your cause is right. I would be very disappointed if the Government went down this road in this case. I would be very very interested then to what course of action you think they should take !??? Or what option do they have . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindJammer Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 Just now, The Voice of Reason said: Sometimes yes money is offered as an alternative to going to court and all the expense involved and the thing dragging on even though you think your cause is right. I would be very disappointed if the Government went down this road in this case. With respect I disagree. Every payoff I’ve ever seen is where people have a really good case. Many are done on the court room steps too after last minute legal advice on the financial realities of slugging a weak case out. But the fact remains. The disclosures she made last week benefits from full legal protection as disclosures to the PAC. They can’t sue her for what was said. What they can do though is try to get her in court to repeat some of them. I’m sure they will settle out of court before it comes to that though after a public rebuttal letter. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: I'v commented before that I was never sure whether accounts such as TVOR were genuine or some sort of anti-government parody - bureaucratic Mad Uncle Ronnies if you like. But their pronouncements echo the sort of behaviour that has been exposed more and more. The arrogance and stupidity are demonstrated in the actions we have seen. And the way in which the only response to criticism, no matter how polite, or reasoned or supported by evidence, is to tell us that everyone should shut up and do whatever they want. Actually in spite of being the recipient of much abuse on these forums (often not polite or reasoned) I have always tried to be polite and courteous. Occasionally frustration may have led me to depart from this norm on occasion, for which I apologize but I would suggest that my postings are usually civil. Much more so than those who choose to use insulting and foul language. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 1 hour ago, Gladys said: Oh well, best we shut up then. 1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said: Result! There's your answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, WindJammer said: With respect I disagree. Every payoff I’ve ever seen is where people have a really good case. Many are done on the court room steps too after last minute legal advice on the financial realities of slugging a weak case out. But the fact remains. The disclosures she made last week benefits from full legal protection as disclosures to the PAC. They can’t sue her for what was said. What they can do though is try to get her in court to repeat some of them. I’m sure they will settle out of court before it comes to that though after a public rebuttal letter. Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said: Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out. Well you would as we all know the courts here are far from impartial! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindJammer Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 Just now, The Voice of Reason said: Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out. My assumption is that disclosures made to committees like the PAC are the truth. That’s why they give people who supply evidence to committees like the PAC legal privilege. So that they can categorically tell the truth without fear of legal consequences. 5 1 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.