IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[WTF]

1 hour ago, Shake me up Judy said:

This is all about keeping certain individuals from having to face an enforced holiday in Jurby.

Hooper should resign after that car-crash interview with Moulton. Embarrassing.

no , he should be throwing the relevant CS liars under the bus and naming names.

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

If it is falsification of now legally accountable documents then that's no less a crime than it would be were it divorce, finance or whatever, surely and should potentially carry a jail sentence. Attempting to block proceedings to prevent disclosure at this stage in the matters is born of nothing more than the sort of puerile arrogance we come to expect from IoMCS.

What on earth Hooper hopes to achieve by putting his name to this is beyond reasoning, if the blocking fails he has to go. His first duty is to the taxpaying electorate, maybe he needs reminding of that. Not the self serving scum in the situation he has inherited.

Watching it felt like it was a decision he wasn't happy about making, and has chosen to toe the comin party line rather than do the honourable thing and resign.

[Dirty Buggane]

Listening to Chief cuntstable wittering on about some young peoples total disregard for the law, and blaming a lot of it on the parents and how they are going to come down hard on them. I hope he is going to treat IOM DHSC & MANXCARE to the same standards of there total disregard for the law and the ministers that control them.

[Two-lane]

32 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Chris Robershaw's thoughts about the High Court.

From the transcript, commenting on Hooper not commenting:

1:57 what was astonishing  was the fact that he couldn't even tell you why he'd authorize this to go before that the high court that's that's extremely strange and wrong

And on who is involved:

8:57 tribunal judgment um one can reasonably conclude that there are a number of agencies here which are associated with the shall we call it for the sake of argument the mal-submission of documentation and they are the AG's department the manx care the dhsc and effectively therefore government as a whole so there's there's wide implications to that so you've got the AG department involved it's so close to this whole business isn't

So who is not involved?

[2112]

3 hours ago, MrGarrison said:

A good comparison and that was basically to try to save a very small amount of money in a divorce settlement not to completely hoodwink an employment tribunal. But the man will never work again in the finance sector with that sentence on his record and the same standards should apply in the public and private sector. As you say there is likely an element of collusion and institutional corruption here which would be even worse. Hooper must have been mad to sign the approval IMHO. He clearly feels uncomfortable in that interview. He needs to learn that it isn’t the job of Ministers to rubber stamp what his officers want.

Hooperman has sold his soul, and now is a busted flush. No backbone and afraid to stand up to people. Ashford you would expect, as he had no scruples, I expected better from Hooperman. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Roxanne said:

Chris Robershaw's thoughts about the High Court.

Presumably we may even get a version when the sound and the image are in synch.

Both Moulton and Robertshaw seem to be getting confused (in different ways) between the Disclosure and Remedy Hearings.  The 25 or 26 witnesses must have been required for the Disclosure Hearing not the Remedy as Robertshaw thinks, because the latter is a very technical exercise working out losses incurred and following pre-existing rules.  It's possible expert witnesses might be called to give evidence about say psychological damage or business loss, but those wouldn't be from the ex-employer as is suggested here.

So the witnesses must have been for the Disclosure and the Tribunal would have been asking questions to find out what processes were undertaken to discover relevant documentation and at what times.  This is something that the Government, with all its HR staff and lawyers, should have comprehensive guidelines and procedures for. 

So senior people would be asked what they asked for and junior ones what was done.  Robertshaw said that a lot of top people had been summoned for the hearing but they might be contradicted by those who actually provided the information.  More damagingly they might be contradicted by the data or circumstances associated with the documents.  Failing the provide documents or producing falsified ones might well be a crime, lying to a Tribunal certainly will be.

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

From the transcript, commenting on Hooper not commenting:

1:57 what was astonishing  was the fact that he couldn't even tell you why he'd authorize this to go before that the high court that's that's extremely strange and wrong

And on who is involved:

8:57 tribunal judgment um one can reasonably conclude that there are a number of agencies here which are associated with the shall we call it for the sake of argument the mal-submission of documentation and they are the AG's department the manx care the dhsc and effectively therefore government as a whole so there's there's wide implications to that so you've got the AG department involved it's so close to this whole business isn't

So who is not involved?

Given how much effort seems to be going into blocking these proceedings, including a performance by a very unconvincing Hooper, one wonders if the tentacles of this run so deep and so far that it might have the potential to bring the Government down? Not just the Cannan Administration but the whole of the Island's governance brought into question.

"Somebody" doesn't want any more of this business exposed and is doing their damnest to stop it including, presumably, a large amount of expense to the taxpayer. There must be a very big reason why?

[Hoops]

3 hours ago, Two-lane said:

From the transcript, commenting on Hooper not commenting:

1:57 what was astonishing  was the fact that he couldn't even tell you why he'd authorize this to go before that the high court that's that's extremely strange and wrong

And on who is involved:

8:57 tribunal judgment um one can reasonably conclude that there are a number of agencies here which are associated with the shall we call it for the sake of argument the mal-submission of documentation and they are the AG's department the manx care the dhsc and effectively therefore government as a whole so there's there's wide implications to that so you've got the AG department involved it's so close to this whole business isn't

So who is not involved?

I wonder how deep the AG's office potential involvement in the potential falsification of evidence is.

I have big doubts about this department, partly stemming from the treatment - mistreatment - of the anaesthetists. Is there anything more to come from that shitshow, does anyone know?

[Hoops]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

Hooperman has sold his soul, and now is a busted flush. No backbone and afraid to stand up to people. Ashford you would expect, as he had no scruples, I expected better from Hooperman. 

Yeah, I know someone involved in politics in the UK, now over here and well connected, and they thought Hooper was possibly the MHK with the most integrity (A very low bar, I give you) in the last parliament.

I think Cannan has played a blinder, a possible thorn in his side thrown a department where he couldn't succeed, and now so compromised that he's lost a lot of respect among the electorate. I voted for him last time, he took the time to talk on my doorstep and spoke passionately on issues of concern, appears he was more of a salesman then a proactive politician. I wouldn't vote for either of Ramsey's MHKs now.

[Dirty Buggane]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

 

"Somebody" doesn't want any more of this business exposed and is doing their damnest to stop it including, presumably, a large amount of expense to the taxpayer. There must be a very big reason why?

Because they are a bunch of incompetent assholes and you watch it will be deemed not to be in the public interest, as it will in all probability bring the government down  

[BriT]

32 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I think Cannan has played a blinder, a possible thorn in his side thrown a department where he couldn't succeed, and now so compromised that he's lost a lot of respect among the electorate. I voted for him last time, he took the time to talk on my doorstep and spoke passionately on issues of concern, appears he was more of a salesman then a proactive politician. I wouldn't vote for either of Ramsey's MHKs now.

I think Hooper has made a very bad decision. He has also probably been lied to. That whole video is a farce and he needs to remember that while he’s telling Paul Moulton that this will all come out in an open court to be reported on he actually signed an authority to agree for the DHSC to take further action to try to ensure that exactly that might not happen. I would also hope to see him publishing the court date on Twitter in due course so we can all pop down there and sit in the public gallery if he wants transparency to happen.

From looking at the Robertshaw video this seems to be a hearing to decide whether the claims that they fabricated documents should be subject to further action by that court or whether it should be bounced to a higher court, or whether there are no grounds to warrant further action. That is clearly in the public interest to be reported on even if that gives grounds for no further action. By trying to suppress it you can sort of assume that they don’t expect that to be the outcome. 

[Hoops]

9 minutes ago, BriT said:

I think Hooper has made a very bad decision. He has also probably been lied to. That whole video is a farce and he needs to remember that while he’s telling Paul Moulton that this will all come out in an open court to be reported on he actually signed an authority to agree for the DHSC to take further action to try to ensure that exactly that might not happen. I would also hope to see him publishing the court date on Twitter in due course so we can all pop down there and sit in the public gallery if he wants transparency to happen.

From looking at the Robertshaw video this seems to be a hearing to decide whether the claims that they fabricated documents should be subject to further action by that court or whether it should be bounced to a higher court, or whether there are no grounds to warrant further action. That is clearly in the public interest to be reported on even if that gives grounds for no further action. By trying to suppress it you can sort of assume that they don’t expect that to be the outcome. 

I was at a hearing recently where the AG's lawyer stated that 'the government isn't afraid of scrutiny'. There were stifled guffaws in the cheap seats and a stern look from the deemster!

[BriT]

10 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I was at a hearing recently where the AG's lawyer stated that 'the government isn't afraid of scrutiny'. There were stifled guffaws in the cheap seats and a stern look from the deemster!

This is getting on for the worst government ever. Not because any of this stuff happened on their watch (the whole covid thing is down to the previous administration) but because of what they haven’t done. Cannan came out a few months ago claiming heads were going to roll. But it’s clear now heads we’re only going to roll as a protective mechanism so that when people ended up in court they were no longer going to be current government employees. Other than that he’s done nothing. The whole culture stinks. Yet they still allow the same tactics to be used to try to keep it all under the carpet. At the same time Longworth still hasn’t apparently gone after the tram and prom fiasco and those who spent £80M on a pipe dream terminal in Liverpool are still getting paid every month. It’s embarrassing. I’m sure someone could sneak into Alf’s office a curl out a turd in his top drawer and still not get sacked. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by BriT

[2112]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

Yeah, I know someone involved in politics in the UK, now over here and well connected, and they thought Hooper was possibly the MHK with the most integrity (A very low bar, I give you) in the last parliament.

I think Cannan has played a blinder, a possible thorn in his side thrown a department where he couldn't succeed, and now so compromised that he's lost a lot of respect among the electorate. I voted for him last time, he took the time to talk on my doorstep and spoke passionately on issues of concern, appears he was more of a salesman then a proactive politician. I wouldn't vote for either of Ramsey's MHKs now.

I thought Peter Karran ex leader of LibLabVan wasn’t much use but I did have some respect for him. He did also have a principled stance unlike Hooperman. If Hooperman had resigned then gone on IOMTV and told Paul Moulton he had done his duty as Minister and he disagreed he would have had sympathy from the GMP. I think most now think he is one of Alfs lackies, no principles, scruples, morals and gumption to do what’s right. I wonder what the LibLabVan leader Paul Weatherall thinks? 

[MrGarrison]

1 hour ago, 2112 said:

I thought Peter Karran ex leader of LibLabVan wasn’t much use but I did have some respect for him. He did also have a principled stance unlike Hooperman. 

Peter Karran at least has integrity which is a commodity the current line up of LV certainly does not have. Hooper is the first LV member to accept a Ministry which is something that Karran was always totally against before this LV members were required to be back benchers as party policy. Cannan has really rinsed Hooper who will shortly be living out the next 4 years on the back benches. He should have had the integrity to resign. If it would have been someone like Callister he’d have crapped his pants and invented some silly pointless argument to publicly resign over to get out. Just like he did when he was in health. But Hooper doesn’t seem to have that neck saving political instinct. Anyone else would have worked out that they were holding the shitty end of the stick months ago.