IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[cissolt]

Career suicide from Lawrie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=76twxqrtbqk

[Numbnuts]

15 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Career suicide from Lawrie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=76twxqrtbqk

Video not available ???? 

[2112]

31 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Is it this one?

I’m shaking my head in disbelief at Hoopermans performance. He says he personally disagrees. He was coming across most Vicky Pollard.  He should show his own moral compass, say so publicly and resign. If he stays, he will only last until the next health service crisis, or until he falls out and the CM has enough - it’s a LibLabVan trait. The DHSC are trying to prevent disclosure of documents, and a tribunal from trying to establish facts, which arisen from the previous tribunal. I dread to think of the cost, and the morality of it. Why can’t the DHSC and IOMG hold their hands up admit wrongdoing, and take their additional criticism. They can’t help but allowing things to be swept under the judicial carpet, or trying to hide behind a Deemster. Pathetic.

Edited August 19, 2022 by 2112

[Dr. Grumpy]

On 6/29/2022 at 6:09 AM, 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/

£1500/day (allegedly)

[BriT]

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

Career suicide from Lawrie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=76twxqrtbqk

Already taken down. 

[Wavey Davey]

28 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I’m shaking my head in disbelief at Hoopermans performance. He says he personally disagrees. He was coming across most Vicky Pollard.  He should show his own moral compass, say so publicly and resign.

Agree Hooper should resign. He clearly disagrees with the strategy of his department so he should vote with his feet. It’s all going to blow up in his face anyway if they think there’s a lumpy carpet big enough to brush this corrupt fiasco under. 

[quilp]

8 minutes ago, BriT said:

Already taken down. 

It's not, see Roxanne's link provided.

Go to last post duffer... 

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

Is it this one?

After a few seconds of watching that, my brain reset itself so I loaded the ClosedCaptions and read those. The content is mind-boggling. But anyway, I could not find anywhere in that drivel that describes what the court case is about. Moulton's first tweet says that it is to stop the disclosure hearing which resulted from the tribunal. My understanding is that a disclosure hearing is only to talk about money, and how much the victim is going to get. What is the purpose of preventing that meeting?

[2112]

10 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

After a few seconds of watching that, my brain reset itself so I loaded the ClosedCaptions and read those. The content is mind-boggling. But anyway, I could not find anywhere in that drivel that describes what the court case is about. Moulton's first tweet says that it is to stop the disclosure hearing which resulted from the tribunal. My understanding is that a disclosure hearing is only to talk about money, and how much the victim is going to get. What is the purpose of preventing that meeting?

At the original hearing, certain documents weren’t disclosed ………. Allegedly. This must be serious if the tribunal has concerns, and they want to delve deeper into this. Ranson has won her claim, and Hooperman et al accept this. Hooperman and the DHSC are probably shitting themselves as to what could come out of the next stage, hence their action. 

[Roger Mexico]

What a load of complete nonsense that interview with Hooper is.  He's claiming that everything will be discussed in open court, but of course it won't be.  The only thing that will be discussed is the DHSC's reasons  for not wanting these things to be revealed in a different equally open court - that is the Tribunal.

It's also very revealing in terms of timing.  The Disclosure Hearing was announced as part of the Tribunal's findings in May and the dates for it were announced in late June.  If there was some deep legal reason why the DHSC felt the Hearing should not take place, then they could have appealed to the High Court any time in the last three months and yet they've left it till the last possible moment to try to get things stopped.  It's the sort of manoeuvre we've seen time and time again in this (and other cases) - they made a last-minute attempt to completely change their case in the original tribunal for example. 

Edited to make clear I wasn't responding to the previous comment.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Roger Mexico

[Non-Believer]

Hooper's put his career on the line here, I hope he has faith in the horse he's backed because it already fell at the first hurdle.

[BriT]

12 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Hooper's put his career on the line here, I hope he has faith in the horse he's backed because it already fell at the first hurdle.

Hooper is arrogant and that will be his downfall. He will believe that he’s been given the right view of reality and that he’s cleverer than anyone else (when he isn’t). The arrogance shines through in that interview. Even when pushed about will heads roll as a result of this he suggests that there are no heads left to roll as they have already binned them off. So I assume that’s what he intends to hide behind. Yes it’s all terrible but Ashford was binned off (after a week of silly self preservation) and Magson and all the others have already been binned off too. 

[BriT]

4 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Ashford hasn't been binned off.

He has from COMIN they can’t bin him off as MHK. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by BriT

[Hoops]

2 hours ago, Roxanne said:

Is it this one?

pure grandiloquence, which is my new word for the day!

[Roger Mexico]

25 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

After a few seconds of watching that, my brain reset itself so I loaded the ClosedCaptions and read those. The content is mind-boggling. But anyway, I could not find anywhere in that drivel that describes what the court case is about. Moulton's first tweet says that it is to stop the disclosure hearing which resulted from the tribunal. My understanding is that a disclosure hearing is only to talk about money, and how much the victim is going to get. What is the purpose of preventing that meeting?

Well you're in good company as Moulton made exactly the same mistake in that interview and had to be corrected by Hooper.  As I said on the previous page, we now have a date for the 'Remedy Hearing' (ie to discuss compensation) early next year, though no doubt they will do their best to keep delaying that as well.  This is about late and non-disclosure of documents to the Tribunal and the possibility that some of those that were supplied were faked in some way or produced after they were supposed to have been.

Unfortunately, due to Moulton's usual lack of preparedness (he's not going to change at his time of life, is he?) he missed out the opportunity to press Hooper on the official reasons for this last minute tactic.  While at least there was realisation that all the talk of sub judice was nonsense[1], the grounds why they are bringing this case to the High Court can be announced now (they will already have been so in any application made) and if care is needed then a carefully worded press release could be produced.

Incidentally, despite all the pious statement from Hooper about  the media and public being free to attend the High Court hearing, does anyone know when it is?  The relevant court listings don't appear to have been updated as they usually are on Friday.

 

[1]  Hopper had some justification in saying that as legally one of the participants in the action, he had to be very careful about what he said, but that's not the same as sub judice, and everyone involved should stop saying that as if the words were some sort of magic spell that made all their troubles go away.