IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Jarndyce]

2 hours ago, Shake me up Judy said:

You can't push a wheelbarrow if you're sat in it...

I only come here for the gardening tips…

[asitis]

29 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

I only come here for the gardening tips…

you'll not be short of fertiliser then !

[KERED]

2 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

This will be a pivotal moment for the island judiciary. 

Protect the government or do the right thing. 🤞

We have two hopes, Bob Hope or No Hope. And one of them is dead

What about The LIVING Hope?

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

19 minutes ago, KERED said:

What about The LIVING Hope?

Different league they only take 10% of your money and this comes with a choice to be covered in shite when baptised on Douglas beach by the sewer.

Compared to Government taking the majority of your money and constantly  covering us in shit.

[Roger Mexico]

I suspect the Directions Hearing today may not to have gone quite as the bureaucracy would like.  These hearings (which only seem to be a thing under that name here and in Australia) are normally chats between the lawyers to work out how the case will be organised.  According to Gef (whose account seems less confused than the Manx Radio one) the DHSC wanted to appeal to the Court because the Tribunal "had acted beyond its remit in looking into the disclosure, or non-disclosure, of documents during the tribunal"[1].  This meant that it would be unfair for the Disclosure Hearing to be held before the Appeal took place, no doubt hoping that the Hearing would be postponed.

Fine, says Deemster Corlett.  We'll have the Appeal 10:30 tomorrow, Friday.

 

[1]  Remember they could have made this appeal to the Court at any time after the Disclosure Hearing was announced in mid-May.  They left it till 12 days before the Hearing started.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I suspect the Directions Hearing today may not to have gone quite as the bureaucracy would like.  These hearings (which only seem to be a thing under that name here and in Australia) are normally chats between the lawyers to work out how the case will be organised.  According to Gef (whose account seems less confused than the Manx Radio one) the DHSC wanted to appeal to the Court because the Tribunal "had acted beyond its remit in looking into the disclosure, or non-disclosure, of documents during the tribunal"[1].  This meant that it would be unfair for the Disclosure Hearing to be held before the Appeal took place, no doubt hoping that the Hearing would be postponed.

Fine, says Deemster Corlett.  We'll have the Appeal 10:30 tomorrow, Friday.

 

[1]  Remember they could have made this appeal to the Court at any time after the Disclosure Hearing was announced in mid-May.  They left it till 12 days before the Hearing started.

And some question the impartiality of the judiciary ?

[BriT]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

According to Gef (whose account seems less confused than the Manx Radio one) the DHSC wanted to appeal to the Court because the Tribunal "had acted beyond its remit in looking into the disclosure, or non-disclosure, of documents during the tribunal"[1].  This meant that it would be unfair for the Disclosure Hearing to be held before the Appeal took place, no doubt hoping that the Hearing would be postponed.

That’s basically admitting you did it! 

[Two-lane]

35 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Fine, says Deemster Corlett.  We'll have the Appeal 10:30 tomorrow, Friday.

I think his first offer was 10:00 tomorrow, and he was pretty quick to say that - I guess he had predicted what might happen.

It was stated that the gov. hired Expol to do forensic examination of the documents, but did not do that until maybe end of July, knowing that the results would not be ready by 30 August. Maybe they would like to use that as another excuse to delay.

[Non-Believer]

Delay, deflect, deny. The three CS staples (and those of one or two on these boards too). Certainly in respect of the first, if you can delay long enough lots of people will lose interest (or the means) and the problem will go away.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Non-Believer
extra bit

[Dirty Buggane]

Could all be part of the subterfuge as in, I would not let them delay so I am taking this seriously. 24 hours later, After intense deliberation (i.e.2hrs 45mins)I find the DHSC are right, case dismissed.

See judiciary are impartial ?

[Hmmmm]

Winners here  are the advocates, understand each side has junior and senior from local firms, all private fees - no doubt if the departments application is without merit then R Ranson's side will look for costs.  Could be an expensive waste of our (the taxpayers) money.  Someone should be held to account if this is the case, Hooper seems unable to grasp the public annoyance at this latest venture.

[quilp]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

The Paul and Chris Show.

Thanks Rox. For those too lazy to follow the link...

Public gallery was full. 

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

38 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Could all be part of the subterfuge as in, I would not let them delay so I am taking this seriously. 24 hours later, After intense deliberation (i.e.2hrs 45mins)I find the DHSC are right, case dismissed.

See judiciary are impartial ?

I suspect if the Deemster thought there was really a DHSC case to answer, then the tribunal would have been delayed.  Judging by what Robertshaw and Moulton were saying in that interview, the DHSC's argument, seems to have been pretty confused.  Offering a hearing the next day suggests that Corlett doesn't think there's much of a case and that he's not happy with the delaying tactics.  To back anything in the DHSC's case would require quite detailed examination of what the Tribunal could and couldn't look at, and there's not the time to consider that this way.

It wouldn't surprise me if the government kept on trying to delay things though, possibly appealing a decision by the Deemster or announcing that many of the significant witnesses were unable to appear next week.

[2112]

@Roger Mexicosince your last post, it is quite amusing reading the postings of Hooperman in a spat with IOMNP Facebook page. You would think that someone who is obsessed with subjudice etc and has an important court case tomorrow, you wouldn’t want to go on Facebook and start arguing. Stupidity personified.

[BriT]

1 minute ago, 2112 said:

@Roger Mexicosince your last post, it is quite amusing reading the postings of Hooperman in a spat with IOMNP Facebook page. You would think that someone who is obsessed with subjudice etc and has an important court case tomorrow, you wouldn’t want to go on Facebook and start arguing. Stupidity personified.

Hoopers sole reply is “It will all come out in court” when he’s the one who signed off on them taking action to ensure that it possibly all doesn’t end up coming out in court. He’ll be doing an Ashy in a few weeks time and be back to the back benches.