Ghost Ship Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 8 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: Aye... And I wonder how much we're paying for the privilege of him being here (assuming he's at least part-resident)?: https://theferret.scot/woerden-nhs-highland-155000-salary/ I'm sorry - is he the new director of public health... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 15 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said: I'm sorry - is he the new director of public health... ? Interim dph 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 From MR site today re altered documents re a house valuation........... ............Deemster Parkes said although it had undoubtedly been a stressful time ........ He said an immediate custodial sentence was "unavoidable" as the courts relied on "honest evidence"................. Will this principle apply in the disclosure tribunal??? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Hmmm the butterfly syndrome in senior appointments usually means they are crap ! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 I see Manx Care are costing the taxpayer a fortune reading the news today: Taxpayers will have to pick up a £170,000 bill after Manx Care was given a huge penalty by the Information Commissioner's Office. The organisation was issued with an enforcement notice in February after an insecure email led to a data breach. Manx Care was given four months to apply data protection rules and introduce security to protect special data, as well as bring in measures to prevent further data breaches. However, after it missed the deadline, it's been handed the financial penalty. You can read the enforcement notice here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 A few months ago I got an email with 40 or 60 other names of recipients! Of the few in the name line I recognised one, I didn't trawl through the others. I deleted it, job done, risk averted. The chances of one of the names being a scammer would be very low here on the Island, was it such a huge breach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Ship Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 14 minutes ago, Zulu said: I see Manx Care are costing the taxpayer a fortune reading the news today: Taxpayers will have to pick up a £170,000 bill after Manx Care was given a huge penalty by the Information Commissioner's Office. The organisation was issued with an enforcement notice in February after an insecure email led to a data breach. Manx Care was given four months to apply data protection rules and introduce security to protect special data, as well as bring in measures to prevent further data breaches. However, after it missed the deadline, it's been handed the financial penalty. You can read the enforcement notice here. Is it a real "cost" though, or does it just end up as book-keeping entries? Where does the fine go to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 According to local snout Moulton, DhSC going to high court to stop the already damaging Ranson disclosure case. no doubt it’ll be true with this shithouse of a government 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0bserver Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 18 hours ago, Gizo said: According to local snout Moulton, DhSC going to high court to stop the already damaging Ranson disclosure case. no doubt it’ll be true with this shithouse of a government 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BriT Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 19 hours ago, Gizo said: According to local snout Moulton, DhSC going to high court to stop the already damaging Ranson disclosure case. no doubt it’ll be true with this shithouse of a government There will be a few people hanging on for grim death that the information gets suppressed as otherwise they’re screwed. But what seems to have happened here is a win for the unions. Ranson got and deployed top flight legal counsel with union backing who have pissed all over IOM Government every step of the way. As such I don’t think that IOM Government control any of this process anymore in order to suppress anything. It’s all going to come out shortly. Maybe we should see if anymore ‘retirements’ or ‘resignations’ happen next week when it becomes clear that the public is going to find out more? 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 (edited) 21 minutes ago, BriT said: There will be a few people hanging on for grim death that the information gets suppressed as otherwise they’re screwed. But what seems to have happened here is a win for the unions. Ranson got and deployed top flight legal counsel with union backing who have pissed all over IOM Government every step of the way. As such I don’t think that IOM Government control any of this process anymore in order to suppress anything. It’s all going to come out shortly. Maybe we should see if anymore ‘retirements’ or ‘resignations’ happen next week when it becomes clear that the public is going to find out more? It matters not whether it's an individual or an organisation. You can only blag, bullshit, wing, bully or scam your way through life in this world for so long before somebody calls the bluff. With it being a relatively large and powerful organisation (IoMG) it's perhaps taken a bit longer but it's still happened, they came up against somebody cleverer and better equipped, playing by the rules and the game is up. The CS couldn't make the game up to suit themselves as they went along on this one, Round 1 went to Dr Ranson and her team and now our public servants are attempting to block Round 2 in an attempt to save their own scalps (at everybody's expense). One would sincerely hope that our legal system can remain impartial and see this blatant game for what it is. Hopefully including the allegedly falsified documents. Edited August 19, 2022 by Non-Believer Typo 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BriT Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: One would sincerely hope that our legal system can remain impartial and see this blatant game for what it is. Hopefully including the allegedly falsified documents. It’s fairly clear that’s going to happen. Her defence lawyer and his team have has run rings around them so it’s going to have to be by the book. I would guess what they’re now trying to cover up is the fact that they fabricated documents that were put before the court. As that has really serious implications. Edited August 19, 2022 by BriT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 21 minutes ago, BriT said: It’s fairly clear that’s going to happen. Her defence lawyer and his team have has run rings around them so it’s going to have to be by the book. I would guess what they’re now trying to cover up is the fact that they fabricated documents that were put before the court. As that has really serious implications. yes, jail for the wanker wanting to do his ex out of a few quid with a false house valuation . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BriT Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 37 minutes ago, WTF said: yes, jail for the wanker wanting to do his ex out of a few quid with a false house valuation . Jail and 30 year career down the toilet. He’ll be lucky to get a job at B&Q in future. I wonder if that case might set any precedent here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 1 hour ago, BriT said: It’s fairly clear that’s going to happen. Her defence lawyer and his team have has run rings around them so it’s going to have to be by the book. I would guess what they’re now trying to cover up is the fact that they fabricated documents that were put before the court. As that has really serious implications. Some at the time were wondering that the apparent inconsistencies in the documents might be explained as carelessness or misunderstanding or some technical failing, but this fight to prevent any examination suggests that there are really serious problems here. It's also about who faked or concealed evidence and that may involve not just DHSC, but other Departments and the AG's Office as well. I've the latter can be shown to linked to such behaviour that undermines the whole system of justice and could lead to all sorts of repercussions. It's interesting that as well as the Disclosure Hearing at the end of the month (30 Aug - 1 Sep) there's also a 'Remedy Hearing' next year (17- 19 Jan 23) which suggests that the DHSC is unable (or refusing) to come to a resolution with Ranson. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.