Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Numbnuts]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out.

Thats not going to happen I feel as DA. and those around him have dug themselves a big hole and not sure how they can get out and retain any credibility whatsoever 

[Gladys]

9 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.

So we can expect the point by point rebuttal at the next PAC meeting? 

[WindJammer]

Just now, Gladys said:

So we can expect the point by point rebuttal at the next PAC meeting? 

But my point is they confer legal privilege to those committees fir a reason. It’s so that people can tell the truth without fear of legal reprisals or litigation. All they can do is rebut at this stage. So yes the rebuttal will be before the next meeting but they can’t actually sue her for anything said either so they may well wish to settle out of court before the claims are actually repeated in a court of law. 

[Numbnuts]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So we can expect the point by point rebuttal at the next PAC meeting? 

From what I've heard on here and PAC the other day will be interesting to see how they are going to manage that !. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, WindJammer said:

But my point is they confer legal privilege to those committees fir a reason. It’s so that people can tell the truth without fear of legal reprisals or litigation. All they can do is rebut at this stage. So yes the rebuttal will be before the next meeting but they can’t actually sue her for anything said either so they may well wish to settle out of court before the claims are actually repeated in a court of law. 

Yes, but if their rebuttal is at PAC, they will have that protection also, and the presumption of truth?

[WindJammer]

Just now, Gladys said:

Yes, but if their rebuttal is at PAC, they will have that protection also, and the presumption of truth?

Indeed and then the only way to settle it is in a court of law which I would doubt the DHSC would wish to do (except for the below reasons). So we may get an awful slagging match and series of rebuttals under legal protection and nothing else.

Or equally they might successfully goad Glover enough to sue them and then try to take her to the cleaners with long protracted taxpayer funded litigation which could bankrupt her to defend. It’s been done as a tactic many times before. 

[Annoymouse]

44 minutes ago, rachomics said:

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. 

 Can much be done about this constant denial that Genomics was/is of zero benefit to us? That is despite you explaining in layman’s terms how it all worked numerous times , you also offered to showcase your skills for free and we now have New Zealand as a running shining example?

For me that’s a lot more serious than any rights issue and ‘hypothetically’ we’ve all suffered as a result.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Annoymouse

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

Indeed and then the only way to settle it is in a court of law which I would doubt the DHSC would wish to do (except for the below reasons). So we may get an awful slagging match and series of rebuttals under legal protection and nothing else.

Or equally they might successfully goad Glover enough to sue them and then try to take her to the cleaners with long protracted taxpayer funded litigation which could bankrupt her to defend. It’s been done as a tactic many times before. 

Yes, indeed. So, no hope of a proper airing then, in all reality. 

[WindJammer]

Just now, Gladys said:

Yes, indeed. So, no hope of a proper airing then, in all reality. 

I don’t know. She seems to be quite an outspoken / volatile person. They could well try to press every button under the sun under legal privilege to get her to launch litigation then put a few million in a bank account and drag it out for years via the AG and the Courts and bleed her dry in enforced defense costs. Or they may not choose to be that aggressive and pay for it to go away. Either way at the moment what’s been said seems to be protected for now. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, WindJammer said:

I don’t know. She seems to be quite an outspoken / volatile person. They could well try to press every button under the sun under legal privilege to get her to launch litigation then put a few million in a bank account and drag it out for years via the AG and the Courts and bleed her dry in enforced defense costs. Or they may not choose to be that aggressive and pay for it to go away. Either way at the moment what’s been said seems to be protected for now. 

Yes, I can see the tactic, but I wouldn't describe her as volatile, just principled.  But, from experience, that often backfires. 

[Annoymouse]

38 minutes 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. 

Well it’s in the hands of Dr Glover and her lawyers.

My personal opinion is rather than solely financial gain, I would like to see those accused of poor treatment and handling of matters held accountable, if guilty of course.

[WindJammer]

Just now, Gladys said:

But, from experience, that often backfires. 

Poke em with enough sticks and they come out fighting 👍

[Gladys]

45 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

Poke em with enough sticks and they come out fighting 👍

Yep, tried that, but my pockets and personal wellbeing were finite! 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Gladys

[finlo]

This really is a toxic little Isle we reside in.

[Non-Believer]

4 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

I would like to see those accused of poor treatment and handling of matters held accountable, if guilty of course.

You wouldn't see it.

Quietly retired, lump sum, pension.