IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Numbnuts]

Hooper , another one signing in to the 'David Ashford' school of attempting to cover his ass. Trouble is he's to late. He needs to go and quick. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Sheldon]

25 minutes ago, manxfisherman said:

Don't fall for it, he's full of shit.

Indeed. I remember him as a novice auditor, sneeringly trying to tell vastly more experienced people what they should be doing. Nothing much has changed since then, apparently.

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

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..

It's this bizarre belief that it's the Minister's job to 'defend' his Department that he seems to have fallen for.   In this case it would be perfectly possible to take a neutral position: "I have been advised that it is legally necessary to challenge this and await the outcome with interest", that sort of thing.  It happened before his appointment, so he could stand back and then promise to review everything when all the legal complications are settled.  Instead he's trying to have it both ways, trying to comment and not comment at the same time.

[Two-lane]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's this bizarre belief that it's the Minister's job to 'defend' his Department that he seems to have fallen for.   In this case it would be perfectly possible to take a neutral position:

Why should he take a neutral position? I pay his salary. He works for me. Who is going to hold the dept. to account if not him? Is it necessity for me and doc.fixit to march on Tynwald to achieve anything?

 

[BriT]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

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 most of them he probably took his CS advisors at face value knowing exactly what happened to Ashford when he fell for all the shite they told him as well. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by BriT

[WTF]

3 hours ago, 2112 said:

. I wonder what Hooperman is feeling? 

his own cock as usual

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

Why should he take a neutral position? I pay his salary. He works for me. Who is going to hold the dept. to account if not him? Is it necessity for me and doc.fixit to march on Tynwald to achieve anything?

Two reasons.  Firstly the Minister is in a certain legal position and committing to one side or another in certain circumstances might mean the eventual decision gets taken out of your hands because you are seen to have pre-judged it.  In this case it might be politically astute as well.

Secondly, Ministers have to work with their Departments to get things done.   So you don't want to alienate people unnecessarily.  So while you shouldn't end up as an unthinking mouthpiece, as too many have in the past, if you spend all your time denouncing them as useless shysters (even if some of them are) they're going to spend all their time plotting against you - which is about the only thing that is in their skillset in some cases.

So you ought to play things 'firm but fair' and that also means you don't get involved in the office politics inside your department as well.

[code99]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

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

As much as my heart goes out to Dr Ranson for the trauma and torment that she and undoubtedly her entire family have suffered throughout this ordeal, the wider allegations of ‘concocted’ and potentially destroyed documents grieve me more – these allegations must be thoroughly investigated.

Any ‘good governance’ regulations (I won’t mention Nolan principles) demand that if (multiple) frauds have been committed, then the IOMG must throw the full weight of law against those who committed these wrongdoings. The gravity of any deliberate obfuscation and manipulation of the truth and the facts, even if it was done to salvage the IOMG’s reputation, looks destined to achieve the diametrically opposite result.

The public who are already livid with belief that there has for too long been a culture of ‘one rule for us and another rule for the establishment’ have every right to expect that justice will be served in this case. The belligerent approach that DHSC seems to have taken to this case will not ingratiate them to the Islanders who are wondering: "if a government department can get away with treating somebody as senior as Dr Ranson this appallingly, surely, they could treat me and my family in the same callous way"?           

[Two-lane]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Secondly, Ministers have to work with their Departments to get things done.   So you don't want to alienate people unnecessarily. 

Quoting from the Tribunal document (and there are other relevant paras.):

"Z471 was a note of a meeting of the Senior Medical Leadership Team (SMLT).
That committee had not existed at the date of the note. The committee had been
created only some days later than the date on the note. Additionally, the
template for that note had never been used until towards the end of March 2020.
The metadata produced as Z474 showed that this document had only been
created on 20th January 2022 – just four days before this Hearing."

If there is substance to these allegations, who is going to instigate an investigation and who is going to carry out an investigation? This is not office politics.

[Kopek]

I thought from the Moulton interview that Hooper 'hinted' or 'made it clear' that he did not necessarily agree with this appeal?

If he made such known in Comin, even as Dept Head, he should not be in a mandatory 'Resign' position? Indeed, he should be on the moral highground of saying 'I told you so' to Cannan?

Interesting position for Malony? She's advised to get legal rep. but the Deemster says she is not obliged to attend next weeks hearings! Could that mean that there are or could be criminal proceedings in the pipeline???

So, should Hooper go? Not unles he instigated this appeal? Should Malone and others involved in the production of documents be worried? Probably?

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Quoting from the Tribunal document (and there are other relevant paras.):

"Z471 was a note of a meeting of the Senior Medical Leadership Team (SMLT).
That committee had not existed at the date of the note. The committee had been
created only some days later than the date on the note. Additionally, the
template for that note had never been used until towards the end of March 2020.
The metadata produced as Z474 showed that this document had only been
created on 20th January 2022 – just four days before this Hearing."

If there is substance to these allegations, who is going to instigate an investigation and who is going to carry out an investigation? This is not office politics.

As I posted ages ago, just because the electronic record has been produced at a certain date, doesn't mean that the record of the meeting has been concocted.  For example, someone goes to a meeting and makes contemporaneous hand written notes.  Think no more of it but are told that all notes of meetings are being submitted to the Tribunal.  What do you do, provide a copy of your scribbled notes, or have them typed up? 

Not best practice, but not necessarily concocting evidence.  As I understand it that is what the IT hearing is about, to obtain an explanation of the anomalies. 

[Kopek]

... but the scribbled notes should still be available ???

[Gladys]

Just now, Kopek said:

... but the scribbled notes should still be available ???

Well exactly. 

[Kopek]

then why didn't DHSC present these as back up?

[Gladys]

Just now, Kopek said:

then why didn't DHSC present these as back up?

I don't know,  presumably this will be explained next week.