Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Scotty]

16 minutes ago, quilp said:

To be fair it could've been sent via the government internal post. 

Not even sure it was a posted enveloped note or a written piece emailed to his home email address. It wasn’t an official correspondence, so in my view DA has done no wrong. 
Have to say though, that Paul Moulton did himself no favours today, no matter what his intent was. I am glad he asked the questions, if only to show some don’t believe what happened and give D A the chance to explain things. Blaming zoom for his incessant interruptions was laughable tbh.

[Gladys]

29 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

We know it wasn't anonymous, so I find it really hard to believe that a DHSC team member of the lab felt so upset by the media reports that they went home wrote a letter, printed it out, put it in an envelope, went to get a postage stamp, off to the post box and it is conveniently perfectly timed for a press conference.

You're a member of DHSC, so you'd just fire an email to the Minister of the DHSC. That's it, an email.

It's just bullshit.

We know but the press keep referring to it as an anonymous letter.

Tell your 3 year old to buck up, the sooner she comes to terms with GDPR, the better. 

[PaulJ]

25 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

Some government script writer will be tearing his hair out right now. 

Well it won't be Howard,he hasn't got any. . . . . .script writing skills

[Scotty]

29 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

If an employee of DHSC sent it to the Minister of said department, it’s a HR matter. A grievance.

I use the word IF loosely.

Who told you that ? You obviously don’t know Gov. employment etiquette or anything to do with HR.

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Not even sure it was a posted enveloped note or a written piece emailed to his home email address. It wasn’t an official correspondence, so in my view DA has done no wrong. 
Have to say though, that Paul Moulton did himself no favours today, no matter what his intent was. I am glad he asked the questions, if only to show some don’t believe what happened and give D A the chance to explain things. Blaming zoom for his incessant interruptions was laughable tbh.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.  But when you don't understand the basis on which this has, apparently, been explained, it is no wonder you found PM an irritant.

DA said how he handled it was down to sparkly things that twinkle in the breeze, a lot of people, including you, could understand that, then PM asked a few questions about those sparkly things and how could they twinkle in the breeze when it is a raging gale?

Or, to put it another way, how can you rationalise someone publicly reading out a letter from someone who has concerns about how this is being handled, even if it is on the side of the DHSC , and then destroying it?

[Uhtred]

I’m absolutely shocked by a suggestion made to me by a family member that, just possibly, the anonymous letter was a fabrication. Think of that...a fabrication. You can see why I’m shocked. I’m off to lie down.

[Gladys]

So sorry for your loss of baseless credulity. 

[jaymann]

24 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Who told you that ? You obviously don’t know Gov. employment etiquette or anything to do with HR.

Out of interest, why wouldn't it be deemed a HR matter? I see the point of the original poster here.

If a letter was sent - let's say - by an employee of a Government department to the Minister with feedback like this letter had, I'd argue that was a recordable matter to be honest, against that persons personnel record. If anything for integrity in case said employee brings a HR case and that letter forms part of their issue?

I don't know Gov HR, especially not for DHSC, I imagine it's rather convoluted. But I do see the points people make about reasons for retention.

Edited November 19, 2020 by jaymann

[Scotty]

Just now, jaymann said:

Out of interest, why wouldn't it be deemed a HR matter? I see the point of the original poster here.

If a letter was sent - let's say - by an employee in DfE to the Minister with feedback like this letter had, I'd argue that was a recordable matter to be honest, against that persons personnel record. If anything for integrity in case said employee brings a HR case and that letter forms part of their issue?

I don't know Gov HR, especially not for DHSC, I imagine it's rather convoluted. But I do see the points people make about reasons for retention.

.Correct. You are wrong. Personal emails or letters are absolutely nothing to do with HR. Why ever would they be ? 

[jaymann]

Just now, Scotty said:

.Correct. You are wrong. Personal emails or letters are absolutely nothing to do with HR. Why ever would they be ? 

Well I mean, it came from a DHSC employee about their work and addressed as Dear Minister. It didn't start Dear my pal Dave, and signed Yours, Jeff from the Outback.. did it?

[Scotty]

1 minute ago, jaymann said:

Well I mean, it came from a DHSC employee about their work and addressed as Dear Minister. It didn't start Dear my pal Dave, and signed Yours, Jeff from the Outback.. did it?

Whatever, ffs

[Roger Mexico]

32 minutes ago, rachomics said:

My thought was always around the timings. It arrived with the Minister on the Thursday by post to his home address. As you say, anyone within the DHSC would have just fired off an email or sent the printed letter to Crookall house rather than go to the bother of finding out the Minister's home address when other avenues were much easier. 

That puzzled me as well.  Ashford said he got it "last night":

which might suggest it was hand-delivered I suppose or that he received it when he he got home after work with that day's post.  Either way it would be an odd way to contact him and particularly odd because it doesn't mention your resignation and yet that was the reason for all the media coverage.

Looking at that again I was struck by just how stagy it was - how artificial the interplay between Quayle and Ashford came across.  It had clearly been planned and even rehearsed (though not well).  I also noted that the 'sender' was only described as as a member of DHSC staff and part of the 'wider team' which suggests they may have had little to do with testing anyway.

[jaymann]

Just now, Scotty said:

Whatever, ffs

I can't help but feel you're a little easily touched by the topic.

If an employee of mine sent me a letter to my home address (not that they would) saying they didn't think I gave them the right level of credit for the work they do, I'd be recording that. Just saying.

[finlo]

5 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Whatever, ffs

You seem to be totally starstruck by these clowns?

[Scotty]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That puzzled me as well.  Ashford said he got it "last night":

which might suggest it was hand-delivered I suppose or that he received it when he he got home after work with that day's post.  Either way it would be an odd way to contact him and particularly odd because it doesn't mention your resignation and yet that was the reason for all the media coverage.

Looking at that again I was struck by just how stagy it was - how artificial the interplay between Quayle and Ashford came across.  It had clearly been planned and even rehearsed (though not well).  I also noted that the 'sender' was only described as as a member of DHSC staff and part of the 'wider team' which suggests they may have had little to do with testing anyway.

Dear me, you think you are superior, don’t you ? 
The CM is Howard Quayle

The minister is David Ashford

Roger Mexico is who ? Carry on being the “Oracle.”