Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Non-Believer]

24 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Why?

Probably the most diplomatic and politically expedient solution, without going down the route of protracted and expensive legal channels. And undoubtedly to save political embarrassment, Dr Glover is clearly an educated and tenacious opponent (and Govt hates those) and has enough belief in her cause to stand her ground.

If she's correct in her claims as presented and won there would be any amount of egg on faces and potentially a lot of explaining to do to an inquisitive (maybe) press and irate taxpayers who would want explanations, not only in respect of the money expended but also knocking on to the handling of Covid genomics. There would be no end to it.

Better to just settle quietly and save a few careers and statures. And maybe taxpayer pennies too although that would be a secondary consideration.

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Non-Believer
typo

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, KERED said:

Patience, Glad!   The rebuttal will be issued in the coming days,  (Remember, Ashie gave his hard-working staff Easter off.)

Yes, you are right, those were the words.  But on closer analysis, they are meaningless, as all the days we haven't yet had are 'coming'. 

[Andy Onchan]

22 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Probably the most diplomatic and politically expedient solution, without going down the route of protracted and expensive legal channels. And undoubtedly to save political embarrassment, Dr Glover is clearly an educated and tenacious opponent (and Govt hates those) and has enough belief in her cause to stand her ground.

If she's correct in her claims as presented and won there would be any amount of egg on faces and potentially a lot of explaining to do to an inquisitive (maybe) press and irate taxpayers who would want explanations, not only in respect of the money expended but also knocking on to the handling of Covid genomics. There would be no end to it.

Better to just settle quietly and save a few careers and statures. And maybe taxpayer pennies too although that would be a secondary consideration.

 

Most likely political embarrassment as you suggest. But what if RG refuses? You can't force someone into a nondisclosure agreement. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen but it would certainly put her in the driving seat and in a better position to get what she wants, a public apology as I understand. She's not looking for monetary gain per se but a recognition that they had done the dirty on her by using proprietary intellectual property and others in DHSC employ from claiming her work for themselves. Just a thought.

[John Wright]

55 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Probably the most diplomatic and politically expedient solution, without going down the route of protracted and expensive legal channels. And undoubtedly to save political embarrassment, Dr Glover is clearly an educated and tenacious opponent (and Govt hates those) and has enough belief in her cause to stand her ground.

If she's correct in her claims as presented and won there would be any amount of egg on faces and potentially a lot of explaining to do to an inquisitive (maybe) press and irate taxpayers who would want explanations, not only in respect of the money expended but also knocking on to the handling of Covid genomics. There would be no end to it.

Better to just settle quietly and save a few careers and statures. And maybe taxpayer pennies too although that would be a secondary consideration.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Most likely political embarrassment as you suggest. But what if RG refuses? You can't force someone into a nondisclosure agreement. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen but it would certainly put her in the driving seat and in a better position to get what she wants, a public apology as I understand. She's not looking for monetary gain per se but a recognition that they had done the dirty on her by using proprietary intellectual property and others in DHSC employ from claiming her work for themselves. Just a thought.

I suspect there’s no scope for settling, negotiating or even mediating. Both sides believe they’re correct. Let’s face it, it appears that one side either doesn’t think, or thinks egotistically and the other thinks extremely logically but appears not to think strategically.

Looks like an authority v spectrum thing.

So you’ll get “I can’t concede or compromise anything because it’ll weaken my authority” up against “I can’t concede or compromise anything because it doesn’t compute”.

[Dr. Grumpy]

21 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

I suspect there’s no scope for settling, negotiating or even mediating. Both sides believe they’re correct. Let’s face it, it appears that one side either doesn’t think, or thinks egotistically and the other thinks extremely logically but appears not to think strategically.

Looks like an authority v spectrum thing.

So you’ll get “I can’t concede or compromise anything because it’ll weaken my authority” up against “I can’t concede or compromise anything because it doesn’t compute”.

What both sides need is a good mediator (not volunteering)

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

What both sides need is a good mediator (not volunteering)

I said the same in October/early November

[Dr. Grumpy]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I said the same in October/early November

It's still not too late in my humble view. If they can leave their egos outside and get together with a good mediator in a neutral location and thrash it out with Chatham House rules, everything can be sorted and the Manx people will be the winners

[Shake me up Judy]

I suspect that the non-disclosure agreement will be the most likely outcome. It's been used plenty of times before. It's a big number and an offer that most cannot refuse. My hunch is that it's probably already been agreed. 

[747-400]

5 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

I suspect that the non-disclosure agreement will be the most likely outcome. It's been used plenty of times before. It's a big number and an offer that most cannot refuse. My hunch is that it's probably already been agreed. 

Dr Glover wrote on her Twitter account yesterday that she was still waiting for the rebuttal, and now expected DHSC to say that they have been invited to PAC and therefore can not provide the rebuttal.

Edited April 15, 2021 by 747-400
typos

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I suspect there’s no scope for settling, negotiating or even mediating. Both sides believe they’re correct. Let’s face it, it appears that one side either doesn’t think, or thinks egotistically and the other thinks extremely logically but appears not to think strategically.

The trouble is that science isn't really a matter of compromise.  You can't agree that the Earth goes round the Sun Monday to Friday, but the Sun goes round the Earth at weekends to keep the Pope happy.  And the authoritarian types are never interested in compromise anyway, or what actually works. 

That said there may be a opportunity to move forward on this because of the creation of Manx Care and the opportunity to make a new start.  It will be a test of Cope whether she decides to move on this or whether the new set-up will be the same as the last but with twice as many managers all paid even more than before.

[Apple]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

That said there may be a opportunity to move forward on this because of the creation of Manx Care and the opportunity to make a new start.  It will be a test of Cope whether she decides to move on this or whether the new set-up will be the same as the last but with twice as many managers all paid even more than before.

The old regime were the 'pay them off and let them go' type in my view. I would have hoped that the new regime may display the much needed and self acclaimed openness and honesty starting with this case. Why should they be embarrassed about how they spend tax payers money. ?

If this gets 'smoothed over' in secrecy then TesCo is not the person I think she may be. However, won't it be up to the new Manx Board to determine any sanction for payment or will they declare this is not a result of anything that happened on their watch? 

Will this be the 3rd blunder, I wonder ?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

12 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

 

If she's correct in her claims as presented and won there would be any amount of egg on faces and potentially a lot of explaining to do to an inquisitive (maybe) press and irate taxpayers who would want explanations, not only in respect of the money expended but also knocking on to the handling of Covid genomics. There would be no end to it

 

Nobody on here has considered a scenario where Dr G is not correct in her claims as presented and lost and the consequences thereof.

Silly me. That would never happen . Would it?

[the stinking enigma]

You really are quite the workaholic.

[Non-Believer]

13 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Nobody on here has considered a scenario where Dr G is not correct in her claims as presented and lost and the consequences thereof.

Silly me. That would never happen . Would it?

Probably not in your world, no.

[piebaps]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Nobody on here has considered a scenario where Dr G is not correct in her claims as presented and lost and the consequences thereof.

Silly me. That would never happen . Would it?

The only reason we can't see the sun shining out of her arse is because most of MF has crawled up it and is blocking the light