IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Jarndyce]

For a inside view of a whistleblower’s experience, can I recommend the book by Mr Peter Duffy, currently consultant urologist at Nobles?
Link to Mr Duffy’s book about his previous whistleblowing experience in the UK NHS; and the consequences for him, both personally and professionally.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whistle-Wind-detriment-dismissal-whistleblowers/dp/1082231967

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Jarndyce
Replaced dodgy link

[finlo]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

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

I'm sure that's the general idea!

[Two-lane]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

 Also, sometimes it is better to move on and leave a chapter closed.

From their point of view that may be correct. But not from the point of view of the people who in the future are inevitably going to get screwed over by these same government employees. Nor from the point of view of the general public who are going to continually suffer the consequences of incompetent managers.

The discussion is not about a single never-to-be repeated incident.

[Two-lane]

16 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Link below is to an FT article - there’s a hyperlink in the article to Mr Duffy’s book about his previous whistleblowing experience in the UK NHS; and the consequences for him, both personally and professionally.

https://www.ft.com/content/284f67a5-c221-443d-b525-258a3fc7ee66

It looks like that is behind a paywall.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whistle-Wind-detriment-dismissal-whistleblowers/dp/1082231967

 

[Roger Mexico]

6 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'.

It's because of the myth of 'management' as some sort of separate and transferable set of skills which can be (indeed has to be) imposed on any organisation  to produce the desired effect.    The idea that managing particular organisations, industries or situations might require particular knowledge, experience and skills is seen as heresy or at best such things are inessentials that a generalist manager can easily pick up after appointment.  So someone like Magson can move from banking into healthcare without anyone thinking it odd and without any need to understand the particularities of her new situation.

In fact management then becomes defined as a separate discipline which excludes any such particularities.  Of course such generalists turn out to be no good even at the bits of their job which are transferrable (such as budgeting) because even these are rooted in the particular.  That's why qualifications are no good to deal with this situation, because it will just entrench the generalist orthodoxy.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Roger Mexico
Posted too early

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

From their point of view that may be correct. But not from the point of view of the people who in the future are inevitably going to get screwed over by these same government employees. Nor from the point of view of the general public who are going to continually suffer the consequences of incompetent managers.

The discussion is not about a single never-to-be repeated incident.

No, it's not, but expecting or hoping that Abbotswood is going to revive and assist in exposing more is forlorn.  Someone has said the matter has been 'settled'.  If it has, it is probably a full and final settlement of all legal disputes between the parties with confidentiality undertakings 

But more to the point, even if there wasn't a settlement, do they have the resources to fight and, most importantly, do they have the stamina to go through the emotional and psychological upheaval and stress that will undoubtedly be involved? 

I agree with what you say about public interest and also securing future employees from the kind of attitude that seems to exist, but I doubt Abbotswood will give us a way in.  

[Jarndyce]

4 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

It looks like that is behind a paywall.

Thanks, Two-lane - I didn’t spot that.   I don’t have an FT sub, but I was able to read the whole article when it came up on a Google search - odd…

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, forestboy said:

6 hours 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!

Yes, from the days when they used to handle the prosecutions.  He obviously realised that he could do the same job for much better pay.

One of the reasons for the Wooler Report, that I linked to yesterday was that when the AG's Chambers took over the prosecutions from the police in 2011, they made such a mess of it that they had to get the police back in to handle it (though this was after Russell became an advocate in 2009).

[Roger Mexico]

5 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Thanks, Two-lane - I didn’t spot that.   I don’t have an FT sub, but I was able to read the whole article when it came up on a Google search - odd…

That's standard with the FT.  The way round it is to google the article headline and you can click on and read that article, but not if you link to it directly.

[quilp]

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

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

They've all heard the old "sub-judice" silencer rolled-out by Walter and now Hooper, and if you asked any one of them they'd likely say the full details are yet to surface and leave it at that. 

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

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?

And this could also add to their omerta. Maybe you've answered your own question. There'll be tittle-tattle and gossip, the occasional nudge-nudge amongst them, most of it just that.

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

There's still some 'fear' in MHKs, of what? I'm asking?

Is fear the right word here? Maybe caution is the operative word. It seems that within the house this matter appears to be "sub-judice" anyway so there'd be little point in asking questions at this juncture. Can't see any of them taking to various media outlets either.

The facts of the case make it clear: that individuals from the DHSC senior management team took it upon themselves to collectively conspire together, to wage a malicious and damaging campaign against Dr. Ranson, who now needs to be suitably and deservedly compensated for her trouble. Once that it out of the way, that will be the time for serious probing questions. One would hope, amyway.

As Robertshaw says, and I'll paraphrase, "this is only the beginning, there's much more to come." Uttered with barely disguised glee, I thought.

Anywhere else, apart from our government, in the private sector say, I suspect there'd already have been suspensions (gardening-leave), conditional resignations and possibly dismissals after the intitial conclusions were reached by the court. Certain individuals grossly over-stepped the mark and need to be brought to book.

[hampsterkahn]

Absolutely - but what is likely to befall those who have “ Over stepped the mark” - what does “Brought to Book”  likely to mean in reality  ?

“ Overstepped  the Mark” ,   would mean  “ Gross professional misconduct”  for others in DHSC employ.
 

[quilp]

1 hour ago, hampsterkahn said:

Absolutely - but what is likely to befall those who have “ Over stepped the mark” - what does “Brought to Book”  likely to mean in reality  ?

There's never been a scandal (for it is so) like this on-Island, in our health service, and one so public. When I say "brought to book" I mean all those players being thoroughly investigated then made to account for themselves and their behaviour if wrongdoing is proven, whether that be in a civil or criminal court. And be contrite, acknowledge their guilt and apologise, publicly. Is there not the possibility that what went on behind Ranson's back could be proven as a case of coercive and controlling behaviour? The emails, the texts, the wanton deception and undermining of Dr. Ranson's clinical expertise, integrity and input in the impending crisis, is there possibly a case to be made...?

1 hour ago, hampsterkahn said:

“Overstepped the Mark” would mean 'Gross Professional Misconduct' for others in DHSC employ.

Very probably, and it should be that within the CS/PS, any employee, at whatever grade, when proven to be at fault is subject to the same rules and treated as such, equally across the board. No extended privilege just because of position, whether labourer or CEO. Or even a minister for that matter. Previous ministers included.

This episode, this debaclé has become too big and too public just to slowly disappear, as much as some might prefer it to. There seems to be more than the usual tut-tutting from the GMP on local social media on this affair. More people are taking notice.

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, quilp said:

he facts of the case make it clear: that individuals from the DHSC senior management team took it upon themselves to collectively conspire together, to wage a malicious and damaging campaign against Dr. Ranson, who now needs to be suitably and deservedly compensated for her trouble. Once that it out of the way, that will be the time for serious probing questions. One would hope, amyway.

As Robertshaw says, and I'll paraphrase, "this is only the beginning, there's much more to come." Uttered with barely disguised glee, I thought.

I watched the Moulton / Robertshaw wash-up show but unfortunately fainted from boredom....

[code99]

13 hours ago, Kopek said:

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?

Anybody, with a genuine grievance, who embarks on a whistleblowing ‘journey’ deserves tremendous respect and admiration. The personal pressures on whistle-blowers can be immense, which is why not many people are willing to do it. It takes a lot of guts and personal resources to go up against the establishment’s wrongdoings, especially when that is happening within the government.

The general feeling seems to be that Dr Ranson’s case is not unique (Dr Glover’s saga springs to mind); there are many other whistle-blowers who have been mistreated by government departments, but their sufferings have not made the headlines the way that Dr Ranson’s case has. My view is that the IOMG, in practice, is not really serious about ‘good governance’. If they were, then whistle-blowers would currently be being supported and not victimised. The IOMG tend to employ consultants/ subject matter experts who write endless ‘good intention’ reports, but then they either bin them or implement them poorly (Manx Care being a case in point).    

Currently MHKs are bogged down dealing with their constituents’ problems, often due to inadequate services being provided by government departments. IMHO, the Dr Ranson case is nearing a crescendo where this week’s hearing will reveal to the GMP how unacceptable the situation was allowed to become and that major structural reforms within government and CS/PS are absolutely necessary. The interaction between government and CS/PS must also be substantially reformed. The democratically elected representatives (MHKs) must provide leadership to the CS/PS, and not the other way around. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that for this to happen, it is vital for the survival of the Island as an independent jurisdiction that backbenchers are given legislative powers to examine the IOMG’s conduct.

The resolution of Dr Ranson’s case must become a catalyst for forever ending these types of quagmires of wrongdoing.     

Edited August 29, 2022 by code99

[Gladys]

Hear, hear Code99.  There needs to be an independent whistleblowing support service for the CS/PS with funding for legal advice to whistleblowers as well as a statutory power of inquiry. 

CS/PS terms need to be re-written to include the kind of behaviour we have seen as gross misconduct and where this is established, the penalties can include loss of non-contributory pension entitlement.