IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Gladys!!

Did I disappoint? 

[quilp]

26 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I think we can safely assume that it's extremely unlikely that young, dynamic, professional people and their families will be making up the numbers to 100 000. This is probably why they're being so sneaky. This could be massive.

I don't think there's a "could be" about it, Rox. One of Robertshaw's last remarks was that this whole affair is only getting started, that there's much more to come.

For too long this government, and previous administrations, those who work FOR us, supposedly, have deemed themselves untouchable. We are now watching the usual suspects attempting to defend the indefensible and watching them fail.

Coincidently I'm watching  a documentary about the fall of Rome... 

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, quilp said:

I don't think there's a "could be" about it, Rox. One of Robertshaw's last remarks was that this whole affair is only getting started, that there's much more to come.

For too long this government, and previous administrations, those who work FOR us, supposedly, have deemed themselves untouchable. We are now watching the usual suspects attempting to defend the indefensible and watching them fail.

Coincidently I'm watching  a documentary about the fall of Rome... 

At least they had good roads. 

[finlo]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

At least they had good roads. 

The Romans didn't squander their money on mindless shite!

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

And part 3:

It's quite useful as all three seem to have been present and both hearings on Thursday and Friday.

Thank you.  

Because this is a well-informed forum, you will all know how many people the AG's Department employs which isn't (as the panellists seem to think) about 45, but currently an FTE of 75.7, a number that has increased over recent years:

Similarly, although there is no dedicated website we do know how many of these are Manx Advocates from the Law Society site.  I reckon 26 Manx Advocates are employed by them.  But this is certainly an underestimate as there will be lawyers qualified in other jurisdictions who haven't bothered to become Manx advocates as well.  If their role doesn't require them to appear in the Courts (for example drafting laws) there's no need for them to qualify.  In this case Anna Heeley who had been leading for the AG's Chambers in the Ranson case and instructed the QC doesn't appear on the list.  So the number of lawyers could quite possible be double that.

As to the Wooley Report from 2012 referred to by Robertshaw, they did release the Executive Summary under FoI in 2017, though it was made very clear that the full thing wouldn't be revealed.  So there must be some fairly juicy stuff in there.

[Two-lane]

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

As to the Wooley Report from 2012 referred to by Robertshaw, they did release the Executive Summary under FoI in 2017, though it was made very clear that the full thing wouldn't be revealed.  So there must be some fairly juicy stuff in there

Quotes from the Summary:

"Most lawyers within Chambers are suspicious of the
notion of ‘management’, either on a personal or organisational basis, and question the right
of others to manage them. There has been a belief amongst some that their needs and
wishes are the right ones and that the organisation of Chambers should fit with those. This
is unacceptable, has had a corrosive effect on the organisation, and needs to be addressed"

"But difficulties within the Prosecution Division have been made worse by the attitude of some
of those within it who are defensive about criticism to the point of being dismissive and, in some
cases, arrogantly so; and the absence of a quality assurance regime or performance data within the
Division means that it lacks the insight and evidence to provide reasoned and substantive responses.
The position is made worse by some lawyers who insist that they are “independent practitioners”
who do not need to be managed and who should conduct their cases before court according to their
own judgment without being answerable to anybody else."

You think there are juicier bits in the full document?

[Non-Believer]

17 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Quotes from the Summary:

"Most lawyers within Chambers are suspicious of the
notion of ‘management’, either on a personal or organisational basis, and question the right
of others to manage them. There has been a belief amongst some that their needs and
wishes are the right ones and that the organisation of Chambers should fit with those. This
is unacceptable, has had a corrosive effect on the organisation, and needs to be addressed"

"But difficulties within the Prosecution Division have been made worse by the attitude of some
of those within it who are defensive about criticism to the point of being dismissive and, in some
cases, arrogantly so; and the absence of a quality assurance regime or performance data within the
Division means that it lacks the insight and evidence to provide reasoned and substantive responses.
The position is made worse by some lawyers who insist that they are “independent practitioners”
who do not need to be managed and who should conduct their cases before court according to their
own judgment without being answerable to anybody else."

You think there are juicier bits in the full document?

Much of that is applicable to the entire Civil Service.

[finlo]

4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Much of that is applicable to the entire Civil Service.

The pressing of the big reset button is decades overdue methinks!

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

You think there are juicier bits in the full document?

Presumably that's where the obviously illegal stuff is.  The oldest rule in Manx politics is: follow the cries of "Nothing to see here!"

It's telling that the reaction to the Report seems to have been, not to get an outsider with legal managerial experience in, but appoint a mate from Athol Street as AG so that things went on in exactly the same way.  And to let the AG's Office expand even more, taking on or inventing new duties to cause even more conflicts of interest.

(And yes, it's Wooler not Wooley.  I even looked the guy up and I still got it wrong).

Edited August 28, 2022 by Roger Mexico
Typo

[Jarndyce]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

3 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Gladys!!

Did I disappoint? 

I was shocked - and stunned….…

…….but mostly shocked……

[2112]

3 hours ago, BriT said:

I’d be putting money on Hooper leaving his role soon. Are you actually able to resign while Tynwald is in recess? Twitter is alive with criticism that he can’t counter. As Robertshaw points out Ranson was still in position when Hooper got the job, he can’t try to dump it all on Ashford. Much as he’d probably like to. 

It’s simple, pure and. He made a complete tit of himself being I interviewed, telling the GMP that he personally disagreed but he was the department. If he had scruples, morals or really believed that going to court was wrong he should have resigned on the day of the interview. The court case was a complete disaster, Hooperman has remained silent apart from a childish and petulant twatter message, which indicates he will hold on till the bitter end. 

[code99]

13 hours ago, Wavey Davey said:

That’s the funniest comment I e read on here for a while. Nobody with any business acumen could last a week in the DfE. 

Dr Alex Allinson (the current Treasury Minister), as an erstwhile DfE Minister, may take umbrage to such unflattering views about his former department. Until the DfE gets officially disbanded, possibly due to being purposeless surplus to requirements, another Minister will be appointed. As the DfE spends an awful lot of taxpayers’ money, I am hoping that Alf appoints someone who has a few practical skills and a bit of common sense, someone who at least has the potential to make a success of it.       

[Jarndyce]

21 minutes ago, code99 said:

I am hoping that Alf appoints someone who has a few practical skills and a bit of common sense

Anyone in mind?

[WTF]

Just now, Jarndyce said:

Anyone in mind?

they can't have , nobody with those characteristics is available,

[Augustus]

11 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because this is a well-informed forum, you will all know how many people the AG's Department employs which isn't (as the panellists seem to think) about 45, but currently an FTE of 75.7, a number that has increased over recent years:

Similarly, although there is no dedicated website we do know how many of these are Manx Advocates from the Law Society site.  I reckon 26 Manx Advocates are employed by them.  But this is certainly an underestimate as there will be lawyers qualified in other jurisdictions who haven't bothered to become Manx advocates as well.  If their role doesn't require them to appear in the Courts (for example drafting laws) there's no need for them to qualify.  In this case Anna Heeley who had been leading for the AG's Chambers in the Ranson case and instructed the QC doesn't appear on the list.  So the number of lawyers could quite possible be double that.

As to the Wooley Report from 2012 referred to by Robertshaw, they did release the Executive Summary under FoI in 2017, though it was made very clear that the full thing wouldn't be revealed.  So there must be some fairly juicy stuff in there.

To be fair, the vast bloat in the AG's office over recent years was down to John Quinn building an empire for himself and his acolytes without any pushback from Will Greenhow. Completely out of control. The man was unemployable on Athol Street but he got the AG gig. Unbelievable.