IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

3. The same selection process that gave jobs to Dr Dirk, Angela Murray, Ian Longworth, Charters, Charters, Maison. Got to be right.

As for 1. Heavens knows why they ran the defence the way they did. But remember, lawyers are only as good as the instructions they’re given. If DHSC and Magson were in total denial at all stages of instruction and preparation.

This was one to resolve, very early, just like Tinwell.

interesting reference to Tinwell. It appears to still be alive as to remedy. That implies that DHSC caved, mid hearing, on liability. 

Not only in denial, but full obfuscation mode with difficulty handing over requested documents.

It feels like this is the tip of the iceberg, only doctors with enough backing pursue the government through the courts.  

[Steady Eddie]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

The Peoples Prince has made an appearance on the NPM today, crying out ‘the public has a right to know’ as to the cost of which it’s going to cost IOMG in the Employment Tribunal which went against them. Perhaps now he has finally come off the fence, others may now follow, putting CM Cannan under pressure of which he probably hasn’t experienced, that he will be forced to take action.

I assume the Peoples Prince is Callister? If so he misses the point by a mile making it just about cost. It’s not about cost at all it’s about a whole host of issues that centre around IOM government and who runs it AND the cost. I’d maybe suggest he’s being deliberately obtuse in order to stay hopelessly on the fence (which seems to always be his preferred position). 

[Non-Believer]

10 minutes ago, cissolt said:

It feels like this is the tip of the iceberg, only doctors with enough backing pursue the government through the courts.  

Precisely, this is something of a first in recent history, very few people challenge IoMG, especially armed with a QC, and it's little wonder that Govt are clamming up because they simply won't know how to deal with it. Hence the delays in responding.

This isn't a case of just ignoring a case brought by the Great Unwashed until it goes away because the GU have run out of money, time or interest.

Govt has very publicly lost a legal contest and are now floundering.

[english zloty]

9 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

I assume the Peoples Prince is Callister? If so he misses the point by a mile making it just about cost. It’s not about cost at all it’s about a whole host of issues that centre around IOM government and who runs it AND the cost. I’d maybe suggest he’s being deliberately obtuse in order to stay hopelessly on the fence (which seems to always be his preferred position). 

That'll be because he's a nob. When he states it makes difficult reading he means the long words, not the content. He wants a Janet and John version.

[Steady Eddie]

14 minutes ago, english zloty said:

That'll be because he's a nob. When he states it makes difficult reading he means the long words, not the content. He wants a Janet and John version.

I just don’t understand why someone would be foolish enough just to focus on the cost. This has the potential to be one of the sea change events in the last 20 years so being a knob is irrelevant. I still don’t get the Peoples Prince bit either!

Edited May 15, 2022 by Steady Eddie
“I”

[Two-lane]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

interesting reference to Tinwell. It appears to still be alive as to remedy. That implies that DHSC caved, mid hearing, on liability. 

How many other cases have there been in recent years? How many of the same names appear each time?

Does anyone have a list? The Janet and John easy-reading version would be ok for me.

 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

interesting reference to Tinwell. It appears to still be alive as to remedy. That implies that DHSC caved, mid hearing, on liability. 

Well we know they caved in to Tinwell (she first made her complaint in January 2016) because there was an FoI Request answered on 19 October last year (Ref: 2021153; Title: Costs incurred in the Dr Tinwell court and employment tribunals) which says in part:

The case has disappeared off the employment tribunal listings. I ask the Attorney Generals Chambers has the case with Dr Tinwell been settled out of court. In respect of this I do not ask for the settlement figures just confirmation that the case has been settled out of court for an undisclosed sum [...].

For this part of your question, the Attorney General’s Chambers can confirm that prior to the proceedings before the Tribunal being determined, the parties disposed of matters relating to the dispute on what they both agreed were strictly confidential terms.

I've no doubt that any eventual settlement in the Ranson case will be dealt with in the same terms and Callister can go whistle if he expects any accurate figures.  Not least because of the answer to the first part of the question:

The total cost to the tax payer in court costs advocates time ect that the Attorney Generals Chambers have incurred throughout all the various and long running employment tribunals and failed court cases relating to Dr Tinwell.

The Attorney General’s Chambers does not record court costs for an advocate’s time: nor does the court itself raise any costs when determining cases before it. In the case to which you refer the High Court made an order that the Appellant (which was represented by advocates from the Attorney General’s Chambers but which was not itself the Attorney General’s Chambers) was ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs of appeal which were assessed in the amount of £10,000 plus VAT.

The case in question was one heard in June 2020, where the DHSC had appealed against an Tribunal ruling to the High Court and Corlett sent them away with a flea in their ear, not just because it was a weak case but because it was clearly all part of the time-wasting tactics being used.  The judgment has a useful timeline of the case up to that point and of course it took at least another year for them to come to a settlement. 

If it now turns out that they still haven't finalised the whole case it will be fairly outrageous - not least because it's been claimed they have.

Edited to add:  Incidentally it was this FoI I was referring to when I replied to Rachel Glover yesterday about the AG's staff not keeping timesheets.  Or is they do, the information clearly isn't used for anything.  Or they may be lying.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Roger Mexico

[wrighty]

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 Incidentally it was this FoI I was referring to when I replied to Rachel Glover yesterday about the AG's staff not keeping timesheets.  Or is they do, the information clearly isn't used for anything.  Or they may be lying.

I can perfectly understand why the AG's staff do not keep timesheets - they're paid employees, rather than barristers in chambers.  They won't be billing by the minute, just like I don't bill by the minute when I'm doing my outpatient clinics.  If I were in private practice however, I would be keeping track in a precise fashion to get the billing right.  I'm sure any external QCs brought in by the AG for specialist purposes will be keeping accurate time.

[Roger Mexico]

8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I can perfectly understand why the AG's staff do not keep timesheets - they're paid employees, rather than barristers in chambers.  They won't be billing by the minute, just like I don't bill by the minute when I'm doing my outpatient clinics.  If I were in private practice however, I would be keeping track in a precise fashion to get the billing right.  I'm sure any external QCs brought in by the AG for specialist purposes will be keeping accurate time.

I think you'll find an awful lot of paid employees do keep some sort of timesheet.  Not to the extent of commercial barristers who really do charge by the minute, but as more general way of monitoring (if only for their own use) what they are doing with their time.  I suspect hospital consultants don't need to because the information is already in their diaries and recorded there - though deviations from expected times may not be.

[Two-lane]

27 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I can perfectly understand why the AG's staff do not keep timesheets - they're paid employees, rather than barristers in chambers

I used to work for electronics companies designing stuff.... Each engineer worked on one or more projects. At all companies I worked at, every week each engineer had to fill in a time-sheet giving the time (in minutes) that had been used on each project.  That information enabled the management to know what was going on with each project.

The only exception I can think of is e.g. someone who is a receptionist - and probably they would have a time code that would be spread across all projects.

If the AG has no idea what the staff are spending their time doing, that is worrying - unless they are all doing non-specific work.

[Roger Mexico]

As an addendum to the Tinwell case, it actually got raised in the last Tywald of the previous Keys (so Ashford was still Minister) when Watterson asked:  Following the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal case involving Dr Tinwell, what lessons the Department has learnt and how the cultural issues raised in that Tribunal case will be addressed?

Ashford was his usual pious, unhelpful self (it's too long to quote in full) but it's noticeable that at this time they were deciding to follow exactly the same path with Ranson (even with the same QC) and with even more disastrous consequences for the image of the Government.

Oddly enough, no one screamed sub judice.

[Bandits]

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

Oddly enough, no one screamed sub judice.

Sub judice is a bullshit argument designed to stifle debate. Any MHK who buys that line is basically an idiot. 

[Bandits]

2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Could it be that ‘Sub-Judice’ is what they’ve been told to say until the announcements on Tuesday by the CM. 

They’re representatives of us. Not paid employees of Alf Cannan or Cabinet Office. 

[Banker]

Apparently Chris Thomas was suggesting Ashford should resign, on radio with Gawne at lunchtime 

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Could it be that ‘Sub-Judice’ is what they’ve been told to say until the announcements on Tuesday by the CM. 

Then why not just say that?  "I'm waiting to see what the Chief Minister is going to announce, before I give my own opinion on further action".  No need to dress in up in dodgy legal language that just makes them look gullible.