Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Pipsqueak]

36 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I'm entitled to respond to a thread with my name in it. What's your name? Could we name a thread after you?

try Hugh Janus

[John Wright]

40 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Nope, just me wondering how much of this is indexed by Google. If it stays, it stays. I'm not in the habit of telling anything less than the truth (for better or worse, thank my aspie side for that) so while I might be overly truthful there's not much I can do about people who disbelieve it. 

It's because I said I had been working 100 hours per week between DHSC and my own company, at a point where the company was in exponential growth. In DA's world that means it must be beaten in order to state the special nature of DHSC staff compared to the rest of us plebs.

120 hour weeks are pretty much unsustainable for anyone for more than a month, even for workaholics like me, so it stinks of DA being told a few porky pies and beliving it. All I wanted when I resigned was to get a 60-70 hour week back. Like a "normal" start-up founder.

 

38 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I'm entitled to respond to a thread with my name in it. What's your name? Could we name a thread after you?

@rachomics I had hoped you would take the hint. Please tone down content and allegations.

Truth isn’t absolute in situations like this. It’s often a matter of perspective. And that’s often dependent on context, where you are, and your view and feelings.

There once was a police recruitment advert on tv. Young black man runs at an elderly lady and she falls to the ground. Vicious thug assaulting someone? Camera pans out and we see the same scene from a different angle. A crate is falling from a crane above the old woman’s head, young black man colliding with old lady and her falling to ground means crate misses her. Hero? 

Actually he could still be a thug,  fortuitously saving her life whilst trying to rob her. Don’t know until all the evidence is heard and the case determined.

[The Voice of Reason]

28 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I'd be wary of engaging with this weasel if i were you 

Not at all. We may have our differences but by and large I find Dr Glover to be pretty straight in what she says even if I may disagree with her.

There are far more weasely people on here.

[The Voice of Reason]

45 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

try Hugh Janus

That’s not my name. Try again

Edited April 9, 2021 by The Voice of Reason

[Numbnuts]

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not at all. We may have our differences but by and large I find Dr Glover to be pretty straight in what she says even if I may disagree with her.

There are far more weasely people on here.

I dont get you , I'm not impressed with your manner and justification of 'voice of reason' . It would seem like bordering on obsession to give a alternative view . Yes for sure we all need the 'other side' but hey , can you not just be a normal human for once . I dont have a go at anyone on here as realise it takes all sorts , especially on a forum , and theres a few on here I wouldnt choose to sit down with on a night out but far more that I would be glad to. There , off my chest and hope you sit back for a time and take stock .

[Annoymouse]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

Nope, just me wondering how much of this is indexed by Google. If it stays, it stays. I'm not in the habit of telling anything less than the truth (for better or worse, thank my aspie side for that) so while I might be overly truthful there's not much I can do about people who disbelieve it. 

I don’t mean this to sound disrespectful, but every time you comment on this thread, you’re inadvertently bumping the content up, effectively keeping it trending and allowing people to engage further. I understand it’s a bit of a double edged sword in the sense you want to dismiss any wrong statements made by posters but If we look towards the future then any pointless ramblings from largely anonymous forum members aren’t going to be taken that seriously by anyone, certainly not as facts, but your posts/replies will be taken as fact. People want to engage and support you through this journey (Myself included) but as you’ve said earlier sometimes those who are well intentioned aren’t actually helping matters. 

John Wright has already said there will be no vote by members to have this thread or posts deleted, so the next best thing is to vote with our feet. If all your supporters stop posting in here it will soon disappear into the black hole of the web, well certainly until there is any real developments within this case anyway.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

I dont get you , I'm not impressed with your manner and justification of 'voice of reason' . It would seem like bordering on obsession to give a alternative view . Yes for sure we all need the 'other side' but hey , can you not just be a normal human for once . I dont have a go at anyone on here as realise it takes all sorts , especially on a forum , and theres a few on here I wouldnt choose to sit down with on a night out but far more that I would be glad to. There , off my chest and hope you sit back for a time and take stock .

Wow!

Firstly I’m not seeking to impress you

Secondly, I’m not obsessed with giving an alternative view. Just expressing my opinions which may be different to yours or anyone else’s ( Forums - duh)

Thirdly I have always been a normal human being, not just for once I don’t have an option.

Fourthly, you say you don’t have a go at anyone. Well I try not to but as stated above it is a forum so people will have dIfferent views. I try to take into account other people’s views whilst avoiding foul language and abusive comments. Others may not.

Fifthly, yes I’d like to sit down with a beer with many contributors on here and chew the cud ( there were forum Christmas nights out previously but in view of the decline in behavior and standards here I don’t believe currently this would be feasible which is a shame)

I really don’t think I have anything to take stock of. If I have offended you in any way I apologies.

[Barlow]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Please anyone do not suggest that I or anyone else on here are nom de plumes for either of those two. It gets tiresome.

 

I don't think anyone is being serious, it is more metaphorical.

A sort of "you are Mr X and I claim my £5"

[The Voice of Reason]

11 hours ago, Barlow said:

I don't think anyone is being serious, it is more metaphorical.

A sort of "you are Mr X and I claim my £5"

That I know but it doesn’t make it any less tiresome.

It may have been mildly amusing the first time. 

[Roger Mexico]

13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not all three hours are your words but that’s bye the bye. (by? I don’t know)

I’m talking about this thread. Maybe a dignified silence on here (and Twitter) would have served you better and given you less angst.

As we know there are two sides to every story. HQ and DA have been subject to much vilification on here and have chosen not to respond in this forum and have just used official channels. Professional you may call it.

Well the three hours are nearly all Rachel's words because she was giving evidence, so the whole point of the session was to hear from her.  That meant  the questions were also related to her experiences and knowledge and they were fairly brief, except from a bit of rambling from Robertshaw who's far too fond of the sound of his own voice.  It seems both petty and pointless to try to minimise what was a very unusually long and detailed witness session, which people found both informative and convincing.

And it's difficult to see what could be more of an 'official channel' than a Tynwald Committee.  Or do you think the taxpayer should be providing an army of spin doctors for Dr Glover so she can reply to Quayle and Ashford in the same 'official' manner?  

[Major Rushen]

When do we here the other side of the story to the PAC.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Major Rushen
Cannot spell

[piebaps]

Wen wi can spel it rite

[Shake me up Judy]

Yes, Major Rushen's spelling is more Catterick than Sandhurst. 

[Major Rushen]

26 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Yes, Major Rushen's spelling is more Catterick than Sandhurst. 

Sorry minx is not my furts language 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well the three hours are nearly all Rachel's words because she was giving evidence, so the whole point of the session was to hear from her.  That meant  the questions were also related to her experiences and knowledge and they were fairly brief, except from a bit of rambling from Robertshaw who's far too fond of the sound of his own voice.  It seems both petty and pointless to try to minimise what was a very unusually long and detailed witness session, which people found both informative and convincing.

And it's difficult to see what could be more of an 'official channel' than a Tynwald Committee.  Or do you think the taxpayer should be providing an army of spin doctors for Dr Glover so she can reply to Quayle and Ashford in the same 'official' manner?  

With respect you appear to have missed the point. Yes the Tynwald Committee is an “official channel”. It’s absolutely right and  sign of a healthy democracy that this is available to Dr Glover. I certainly would not wish to minimise the session, that would be petty and pointless. It certainly was informative and everyone will use their own judgement as to how convincing they found it.

My point is that if you choose to use social media to prosecute your case then you can hardly complain if others make posts with a different point of view.

Hope that’s cleared things up.

Edited April 10, 2021 by The Voice of Reason