IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Kopek]

19 minutes ago, code99 said:

most of them just toe the (required) line

Since their pay was made a basic rate, without an increase for Dept members, they are, in theory, free to oppose as their conscience requires? They can be fired from all Depts and not lose any pay.

While this should lead to greater scrutiny, especially from the committees, it has not necessarily been seen, publicly, to  have had any great effect on the behaviour of Comin.

For a Party to be  an opposition, they have to get elected firstly!!!      Vote MLP?

[Shake me up Judy]

Wasn't there also a suggestion of bullying by the DHSC in the Abbotswood affair. Was it ever properly investigated and reported ? Were some of the same individuals involved as in the Ranson case ? 

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Wasn't there also a suggestion of bullying by the DHSC in the Abbotswood affair. Was it ever properly investigated and reported ? Were some of the same individuals involved as in the Ranson case ? 

Magson was one of the biggest failures. There was an attempt to cover-up the discharge of a C+ patient from Nobles to Abbotswood, when it got uncovered and challenged (well after the fact and refurbishement), it appears to have been confidentially settled out.

You can bet your bottom dollar if DHSC had clean hands, the outcome would be very different and public. I doubt we'll ever see a promised 'Abbotswood Inquiry', although suspect it may well fall under the wider COVID19 response review.

[NoTailT]

I said earlier in the thread I find it VERY interesting that Abbotswood's adovcate Pete Russell has also been appointed by Ranson. Very telling indeed. That man will have his own book to write after all this is said and done.

[Shake me up Judy]

Shame that the owners of Abbotswood didn't have the same deep pockets of Dr Ranson, backed by the BMA and a Queen's Counsel. Perhaps we've had the wool pulled over our eyes.

[forestboy]

50 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I said earlier in the thread I find it VERY interesting that Abbotswood's adovcate Pete Russell has also been appointed by Ranson. Very telling indeed. That man will have his own book to write after all this is said and done.

Ex policeman!

[code99]

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

Since their pay was made a basic rate, without an increase for Dept members, they are, in theory, free to oppose as their conscience requires? They can be fired from all Depts and not lose any pay.

While this should lead to greater scrutiny, especially from the committees, it has not necessarily been seen, publicly, to  have had any great effect on the behaviour of Comin.

For a Party to be  an opposition, they have to get elected firstly!!!      Vote MLP?

It is true that backbenchers’ pay is no longer tied to departmental roles, but for various reasons under the present system their pay disincentive may still not be enough to entice some backbenchers to ‘oppose’. Clearly, to change this ‘culture’ a different approach is needed.

Rightly or wrongly, to-date there has not been much of an appetite for party politics on the Island. An alternative option could be for backbenchers (independent and party-affiliated) to set-up an official ‘oversight and supervision office/group’ within the HoKs. They would collectively review all government decisions, practices, policies, etc. To be effective they would need to be given real powers and authority (which would probably require passing a specific administrative statute), not just a toothless tiger status. That said, an informally constituted group would be better than what we have now, IMHO.

[Two-lane]

22 minutes ago, code99 said:

It is true that backbenchers’ pay is no longer tied to departmental roles, but for various reasons under the present system their pay disincentive may still not be enough to entice some backbenchers to ‘oppose’. Clearly, to change this ‘culture’ a different approach is needed.

This thread at this time is not really about, for example, the philosophical differences between Labour versus Tory,  but is about the dreadful treatment of Ranson by a government department -  i.e. by people, the employees within that department.

All that is required of the MHKs is nothing more than honesty and integrity. Money and political parties does not come into it.

Note that all the outrage, the disbelief,  that so far has been published has been generated by journalists, not by MHKs.

Maybe that is what Hooper in his strange Tweet was saying - that MHKs have been commenting on the case but the press has refused to publish their comments...

[NoTailT]

Isn't a LibVan principle not to partipate in COMIN?

Looks like failure to adhere could be what kills Hooper.

[code99]

25 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

This thread at this time is not really about, for example, the philosophical differences between Labour versus Tory,  but is about the dreadful treatment of Ranson by a government department -  i.e. by people, the employees within that department.

All that is required of the MHKs is nothing more than honesty and integrity. Money and political parties does not come into it.

Note that all the outrage, the disbelief,  that so far has been published has been generated by journalists, not by MHKs.

Maybe that is what Hooper in his strange Tweet was saying - that MHKs have been commenting on the case but the press has refused to publish their comments...

You are correct that this is not about Labour versus Tory, UK party politics. What this thread is about is that a government department was allowed to get away with treating a high-profile individual appallingly. This has only been possible because our ‘political’ governance is inadequate. Unless the system changes, tomorrow we may be discussing a similar incident happening to somebody else.  

[quilp]

Worth remembering that it's not only high-profile individuals who've been treated appallingly, lesser mortals historically have also had to deal with the same underhandedness and sleaze. 

[Kopek]

Maybe if MHKs were braver they would speak out more, especially on items like this which is generating public concern?

They obviously may have background info that we don't and that causes them to be more reticent than we would like them to be??? There's still some 'fear' in MHKs!!! Of what? I'm asking?

[Jarndyce]

31 minutes ago, quilp said:

Worth remembering that it's not only high-profile individuals who've been treated appallingly, lesser mortals historically have also had to deal with the same underhandedness and sleaze. 

Indeed - and they still do.   Whistleblowing is never easy - but it’s almost impossible in a “normal” job with a “normal” salary.   If you don’t have the income and status of a consultant and the might of the BMA behind you, very few would be bold enough to take on IOMG, especially on their recent form - overt bullying, threats, being undermined, stonewalling and ultimately they can just sit on their hands until you run out of cash.   Allegedly.

[P.K.]

5 hours ago, wrighty said:

This is something I've always thought is a problem, not in relation to here or this particular instance, but generally in health worldwide.  A 'manager' can fail, buff up his or her linked-in profile to make it sound like a great success, and move on to the next place.  The NHS are, I believe, trying to address this with recognised qualifications at least, but nothing like a regulatory body that could remove a 'license to manage'.

As I understand it a lot of NHS admin/management types have no medical background.

How this qualifies them to "manage" the activity and even stand in judgement of those medically savvy but below them in the pecking order is quite beyond me.

I ran a team of IT technicians in a department of various disciplines who were all very technically savvy and motivated because they were aware that the customer is king i.e. no customers = no business.

Someone's admin favourite was parachuted in to "manage" the activity.

As they couldn't add any value whatsoever to an operation that was basically very successfully running itself they spent their entire time tacking themselves on to meetings. Any meetings. So much so they became known as  "The Meeting Moth" because they were attracted to ALL meetings.

Having made a "success" of their tenure they "moved on"....

MEETINGS - THE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO WORK...

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

They don’t. But it’s possible they could ‘piggy back’ into another, successful case?

Not if they have reached a settlement.  Also, sometimes it is better to move on and leave a chapter closed.