Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

it's worth saying that no judge could have allowed such a weak case and retained any credibility.  And Deemsters don't like being pissed about and the way this last minute attempt to stop things was done, fits that description perfectly.

Clearly, it wasn't Deemster Corlett's turn in the wheelbarrow...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran out of brain cells trying to follow the dialogue, but my conclusion is that the Tribunal cannot conduct any investigation. It only considers documents presented.

The Hearing starting on Tuesday will consider the effects on the compensation paid to Ranson resulting from the non-disclosure of documents.

But there was no discussion of who would investigate the allegation made by Ranson's lawyer that, amongst other things, a document was concocted - which is presumably a criminal offence.

[footnote]

When commenting on the various conflicting  dates in the document in question, the gov.'s advocate said it might have been when the database was transferred from the DHSS to Manx Care. Which is probably just a throwaway statement but implies that Chief Information Officer Richard Wild does not know how to copy over a database without screwing up the dates in the documents.

[another footnote]

During one of the many long discussion of why the gov. did not respond sooner after the publication of the Tribunal's report, the Deemster said "So the Attorney General's chambers got it completely wrong?". I smiled - as quietly as I could.

  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I don’t honestly think in this case it was, it was clearly a stalling tactic from the off, desperate and clutching at straws. He obviously is not prepared to put his reputation on the line.

I doubt he thought about his reputation, rather that the rule and process of a legal system independent of any influence is sacrosanct as it should be and decided on those terms, the law and the facts before him alone.  You may think I have rose tainted (intentional) glasses, but the criticism of the judiciary here is often based on not having the desired or popular outcome, not whether it was right in law and on the facts and, TBH, that is all the judiciary have to worry about. 

When it becomes a process that decides based on popular approval, that really is the time to worry. 

As it happens,  this is a decision that has popular approval.  Bear that in mind when  other decisions are made without that popular approval but have nevertheless been made based on much more evidence and knowledge than is available to the ordinary man in the street.

That is not to say the judiciary are infallible, but that is why there is an appeals and review process. 

Sorry to sound so sanctimonious, but I hope this has restored some faith in the process and that everyone is not in some other pocket of the establishment. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Toys out of pram

 

As Rachel Glover pointed out in the replies, there's nothing to prevent him discussing whatever was said in Court today, it's protected unless the Deemster specifically ruled otherwise.  So if he or the Department is unhappy about media coverage there's nothing to prevent them telling us on twitter or in a press release or wherever.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Lawrie, you nailed your colours to the mast which has proved to be the wrong one. You backed an overt attempt to block due legal process in the name of protecting previous corrupt actions.

A truly appalling stance for a Minister to have taken. Write out your resignation and hand it in please.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I’m looking forward to the media reporting the whole story about today’s High Court case, although I get the feeling I might be waiting a while…

This is an insulting statement, in which he says that the press is biased against the gov.  I'd like to go on Facebook and give him a piece of my mind. Unfortunately, as previously revealed here, I am banned from Facebook.

So anyway, If Mr Hooper just happens to be reading this, who is going to investigate the allegations that a document was concocted?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...