Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Non-Believer]

15 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said:

I was always told answer a question with as few word's as possible and only answer what is relevant to the question

That doesn't apply to any politician though...

[Rhumsaa]

10 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

There may actually be more to come out of course.  There was another interesting Twitter thread from @rachomics a week ago:

An SAR is a Subject Access Request, where a member of the public can ask government "What have you got on me?" and they are obliged to tell.  In this case it clearly revealed all the memos and meetings when they were bitching about her behind her back.  But it also reveals just how intense the opposition to testing was, no matter what they were saying in public.

As a SAR is different from an FOI Request I wonder where the public naming of a 3rd party stands?

Although the term "narrative" is not necessarily a negative statement it could be construed as such;

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

It would appear that Dr. Glover is lifting the lid on unpleasantness that IOMG really wouldn’t want made public. There’s seemingly an agenda here that’s already looking most distasteful. And whoever Peter Boxer is, Dr. Glover appears to be closing in on him.

 

[Whatnonsence]

45 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said:

I listened to DA's evidence yesterday and I am sure he is after the Nobel peace prize for his expertiise on Genomic's. I do not know why Dr Glover did not just ask DA rather than the do all those years studying as clearly he has learned all there is to know about Genomic's in 15 month's reading paper's on the sublect. I was always told answer a question with as few word's as possible and only answer what is relevant to the question, it would appear the same advice was not given to DA.

A point that should not be lost with the Chief Minister he is awful for waffling on when a one liner would have done the trick.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Rhumsaa said:

As a SAR is different from an FOI Request I wonder where the public naming of a 3rd party stands?

As those who release the information chose not to redact the name, I would imagine that it's perfectly OK.   In any case perhaps it is time to get away from this uniquely Manx (and very recent even here) idea that all civil servants should never be mentioned by name and never held responsible for their actions and statements.

But the most telling thing is the way in which the only thing that really concerned those who were supposed to be running the country was controlling the 'narrative' rather than doing the right thing.

[Rhumsaa]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

As those who release the information chose not to redact the name, I would imagine that it's perfectly OK.   In any case perhaps it is time to get away from this uniquely Manx (and very recent even here) idea that all civil servants should never be mentioned by name and never held responsible for their actions and statements.

I'm 50/50 on this

I agree that there shouldn't be a complete shield where CS can act without any repercussions and just throw out the MHK of the day to be torn apart for the various failings

However, in practicality what will happen is the communication within the CS will cease to be in email, minutes will stop being taken for meetings, all references to names will be removed to avoid being caught under SAR or FOI requests and these sort of things will become even more cloak and dagger.

Also in the defence of MHK's and CS, there are decisions and discussions that need to be had in a frank and open manner and if they're working from a position of fear that their correspondence will be at a later date disseminated and attacked without context by third parties then this will not occur.

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the most telling thing is the way in which the only thing that really concerned those who were supposed to be running the country was controlling the 'narrative' rather than doing the right thing.

This is a case in point. I have absolutely no idea what the correspondence this chap wrote, and yet there are now multiple people on here who have his motive/actions/failure already determined because of a couple of tweets by someone currently in a public spat with the Government. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

However, in practicality what will happen is the communication within the CS will cease to be in email, minutes will stop being taken for meetings, all references to names will be removed to avoid being caught under SAR or FOI requests and these sort of things will become even more cloak and dagger.

[...] This is a case in point. I have absolutely no idea what the correspondence this chap wrote, and yet there are now multiple people on here who have his motive/actions/failure already determined because of a couple of tweets by someone currently in a public spat with the Government. 

But we know that non-minuting goes on anyway - the Steam Packet meeting wasn't anyway - even though it clearly should have been and actions agreed straight away.   And SARs are only contain stuff that involve the requester in some way.  So genuine policy documents and discussions should be excluded.

 You missed my point about Boxer.  It's not what he said or didn't say that matters - it's the fact that he was involved at all.   Why is the "Executive Director, External Relations" concerned with discussions about the best strategy for Covid testing?  These should be matters of public health and science, not PR.

[Barlow]

37 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But we know that non-minuting goes on anyway

Although highly, highly efficient at destroying letters once they have "served their purpose".

[Uhtred]

3 hours ago, Whatnonsence said:

A point that should not be lost with the Chief Minister he is awful for waffling on when a one liner would have done the trick.

Simply because these clowns are addicted to the sound of their own voices and can't wait to share their great wisdom with us.

[Rhumsaa]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

You missed my point about Boxer.  It's not what he said or didn't say that matters - it's the fact that he was involved at all.   Why is the "Executive Director, External Relations" concerned with discussions about the best strategy for Covid testing?  These should be matters of public health and science, not PR.

For that see;

1 hour ago, Rhumsaa said:

This is a case in point. I have absolutely no idea what the correspondence this chap wrote, and yet there are now multiple people on here who have his motive/actions/failure already determined because of a couple of tweets by someone currently in a public spat with the Government. 

 

[Banker]

Ashie defends using the letter 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/health-minister-defends-using-unattributed-letter/?fbclid=IwAR003EmCCZNNS-jp1jT7hH5hg8fExpTNsa52IwY3eQA1HZ6HpkxP4m7GhsQ

[rachomics]

If you fancy hearing the actual context of the letter reading out take a look here:

 

The reading out of that letter wasn't to praise me, regardless of how he wants to try to spin it now. I've seen the internal email conversations he had with others regarding my resignation... any praise he has for me publicly is superficial, glib, and self-serving. 

[Sheldon]

40 minutes ago, rachomics said:

If you fancy hearing the actual context of the letter reading out take a look here

What a bloody lucky coincidence that he just happened to have the letter conveniently to hand on his lectern when a tangentially related question was asked. Talk about "malice aforethought".

[Non-Believer]

This Govt employs any number of spin doctors, skilled in their job, who would have coached Ashford in the view of the letter he wished to portray.

There's also an election in the offing. He will want to sound confident and assured to those who do worship him. And there are a good few of those.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Ashie defends using the letter 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/health-minister-defends-using-unattributed-letter/?fbclid=IwAR003EmCCZNNS-

 

So Mr Ashford refers to the "unattributed letter" and then destroys (the only copy?) so it can't be challenged.

Clearly the actions of an innocent man...

[Gladys]

23 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I can’t listen. I just can’t. 

When it happened, within twelve hours he’d ‘perfected’ his story to make it sound almost plausible even though everyone knew it was bollocks.

Make no mistake, this is a very skilled man at his craft (which is rising to the top in any way possible), regardless of who gets battered along the way  

Yesterday, or the day before, we listened as he gave evidence to the PAC. Evidence that was untrue, on many levels, and one particular level potentially dangerous.  for a Minister, who’s job is to oversee, not to play to the gallery and pretend he has enough knowledge and comprehension to espouse on virus testing at a molecular level and got it spectacularly, dangerously wrong.

But he did sound as though he knew what he was talking about.

So plausible, so reassuring, so calm, so knowledgable, so affable  

Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing  

 

I have been saying this for so long, he always sounds plausible, well briefed and convincing, even when the words are clap trap.  That is a dangerous skill.