IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[2112]

9 minutes ago, BriT said:

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.

Hooperman is quite frankly a Wally and has no bottle. He clearly disagrees and should have walked, and maybe salvage some credibility. To enter into a social media spat to boot is behaviour unbecoming of a COMIN member, especially when you are going to court the next day on such an important court case. Secondly it does seem that Ministers are in thrall to those in charge of IOMNP Facebook page, especially as they are quick to reply, and eager to take the bait. I’m sorry but Hooperman shouldn’t be using Facebook at work either. 

[Beyond Belief]

The government of the Isle of Man is a parliamentary representative democracy. In a democracy a citizen who wants to know if a decision was taken through the correct procedures can find this out. He/She has the right and means to examine the process of decision-making. This is known as transparency.  The IoM Government doesn’t understand the word “transparency” and therefore   forgotten that it is a democracy.

I wouldn’t be surprised if certain individuals in Westminster who have been vocal about the IoM are watching this case carefully.  We keep give people the tools to beat us with.

If can’t trust Government or dare I say it the Courts, to do the right thing, then why would you want to relocate here? Ultimately, people will decide which is the lesser of two evils before making any decisions?

[Manx Resident]

Mr Cannan was on the Mannin Line today. Given the actions being taken by DHSC the presenter had the opportunity to ask him to comment on his progress changing the culture of government and with his agenda to ensure openness and transparency. Surprise surprise he wasn’t asked for an update.

[2112]

29 minutes ago, Manx Resident said:

Mr Cannan was on the Mannin Line today. Given the actions being taken by DHSC the presenter had the opportunity to ask him to comment on his progress changing the culture of government and with his agenda to ensure openness and transparency. Surprise surprise he wasn’t asked for an update.

He may not be able to provide updates as things may be both beyond CM Cannan control, especially if the cost of living and energy costs spiral. He could end up leading a paralysed administration, he has resigned ministers and nobody capable of fulfilling the roles. We can’t predict the future!

[Ghost Ship]

I've only just come back to this thread today and would make the following observation.  (NB - I have no particular knowledge whatsoever of proceedings today in court or what prompted them).

I was a bit surprised when the Employment Tribunal originally delivered its judgment on the Dr Ranson case that the Tribunal also announced that it was dissatisfied with various aspects relating to the disclosure of evidence by the respondent (DHSC/Govt), and that the Employment Tribunal would be carrying out a further hearing to look into that.

I was surprised because I wouldn't have thought that another hearing by the tribunal would be either the appropriate or the correct forum to investigate issues regarding disclosure in this case.  The Tribunal is an adversarial one surely, and not an investigative one.  I'd be surprised if they had the skills or resources to carry out such an investigation.

I would have thought the correct course of action would have been for the Chair of the Tribunal to refer the matter to the police for investigation.  If there were any question at all that evidence had not been properly disclosed, isn't that how it should have been handled?

Is that perhaps what today's court hearing has been about?

[Dirty Buggane]

So you obviously think the government are squeaky clean and should not have to answer any questions. Perhaps the tribunal are investigating whether there has been any wrong doing, as it was the tribunal the iffy documents were presented to as fact. And if any criminal wrong doings are forth coming will be reported to the police. And they can brush them under the carpet, as not being in the publics interest.

[quilp]

The forensics are being carried out by Expol. Isn't this organisation run by retired local plod? Surely if there's any suspicion of criminality the local constabulary should be dealing with it?

I might get there early tomorrow...

[finlo]

9 minutes ago, quilp said:

The forensics are being carried out by Expol. Isn't this organisation run by retired local plod? Surely if there's any suspicion of criminality the local constabulary should be dealing with it?

I might get there early tomorrow...

All very cosy!

[Ghost Ship]

46 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

So you obviously think the government are squeaky clean and should not have to answer any questions. Perhaps the tribunal are investigating whether there has been any wrong doing, as it was the tribunal the iffy documents were presented to as fact. And if any criminal wrong doings are forth coming will be reported to the police. And they can brush them under the carpet, as not being in the publics interest.

Errr...  No

I suggest you read my post again.  You might also want to check a dictionary definition of "obviously".

But for people who have difficulties with reading comprehension, I'll try to make it easier...

My simple (and quite possibly mistaken) opinion is that the members of an employment tribunal on the Isle of Man probably do not possess the sort of knowledge, qualifications, experience, skills or investigatory powers to look into what seem to be potentially quite serious allegations about government conduct in a tribunal case.  Indeed, if I understand correctly, there may even have been rumours that certain aspects of that alleged conduct might amount to fraud or other illegal behaviour.

And even if the tribunal does uncover evidence of wrong-doing, I doubt that they will have the legal powers to apply appropriate sanctions against any individual or individuals.  It is just an employment tribunal.  I suspect that effective action against people who may have acted wrongly would inevitably require a police investigation and subsequent prosecution in a criminal court.

That is why I was surprised when the original verdict was delivered that the tribunal announced it would carry out its own investigation, and that it wasn't referred to the police there and then.  If it is subsequently found necessary that a polce investigation be carried out, it would seem to me to be better to carry it out immediately and not several months later - when who knows what may have disappeared.

Of course, if you are suggesting that the IoM Constabulary is inefficient, incompetent or otherwise deficient in executing its duties, then that is an entirely different question from the one I am addressing.

As I said in my earlier post, I have no particular knowledge about today's court case.  What I have posted is mere speculation based on my initial surprise that the ET had decided to investigate the alleged disclosure failings itself, and not refer it to the police, who I would have thought would have been better placed to do so.

And if you read my other contributions on this thread you will see that they have all been scathing of the government in this matter.

[Ghost Ship]

1 hour ago, quilp said:

The forensics are being carried out by Expol. Isn't this organisation run by retired local plod? Surely if there's any suspicion of criminality the local constabulary should be dealing with it?

I might get there early tomorrow...

If you can attend it would be good to get a first hand account as to either (1) whose dirty laundry is going to be washed in public, or (2) what carpet said laundry will be brushed under.

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, quilp said:

The forensics are being carried out by Expol. Isn't this organisation run by retired local plod? Surely if there's any suspicion of criminality the local constabulary should be dealing with it?

I might get there early tomorrow...

Surely they'll just have been hired to help make DHSC's defence of the allegations made by Ranson's team. Whatever evidence Expol may be able to find will be presented as such?

ETA. One might wonder if it would be better to call in an off-island constabulary to investigate?

Edited August 25, 2022 by Non-Believer
extra bit

[Ghost Ship]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

If it was, then Mister Hooper has missed an opportunity to give reference to that instead of the pig’s ear he made of that fumbling pile of nothing last week. I would imagine people will be pissed off about this. At a time when government is facing many challenges, the public turning against them is one they could do without. What you have said is quite possible. Why wouldn’t they be upfront about that? 

You tell me.  Habit?  Incompetence?  Stupidity?

(Of course, as I've already been at pains to point out, I might be completely mistaken as to what the court hearing is about.  But I just don't see how an employment tribunal could investigate these allegations effectively.  It needs a proper forensic investigation, not one by an employment tribunal.  I think Quilp has referred to ExPol  -  but who are they?)

[finlo]

1 minute ago, Ghost Ship said:

You tell me.  Habit?  Incompetence?  Stupidity?

(Of course, as I've already been at pains to point out, I might be completely mistaken as to what the court hearing is about.  But I just don't see how an employment tribunal could investigate these allegations effectively.  It needs a proper forensic investigation, not one by an employment tribunal.  I think Quilp has referred to ExPol  -  but who are they?)

Ex plod.

[Ghost Ship]

1 minute ago, finlo said:

Ex plod.

And is that considered good or bad?

[finlo]

Just now, Ghost Ship said:

And is that considered good or bad?

Well I suppose they're pissing out of the tent rather than pissing in.