IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Beyond Belief]

A tribunal, looking into how documents were disclosed at an earlier hearing, was told Dr Rosalind Ranson only obtained all documents about her after submitting a Data Access Request.

This is just just typical of the Manx legal system, corrupt to the core, withholding evidence, continuously hide behind a veil of secrecy.  Westminster is going to have a field day.  IoM advocates/lawyers have got away with murder for years and never been held accountable and it continues to this very day.  The Courts will never hold their own friends/colleagues to account and so the corruption will continue.    

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Apple said:

Andrew Foster actually gave evidence at the Dr. Ranson tribunal hearings and he, Cope and Magson gave what I thought seemed to be different versions about the pre Manx Care appointment meetings in the UK and who had , or had not, taken notes.

One of the questions not being asked is how we have got to this point. Several people I suspect knew what had been going on for several years and had probably been informed about it all along the way.  This did not happen overnight. 

I agree with those that say the health and social services were in need of necessary reform and had been for some time. The case against Dr Ranson is of course needs concluding but there are people I know who feel equally badly treated by the DHSC and now by Manx Care when it comes to fairness. What will happen to those patients and staff who are also unfairly treated and cannot afford lawyers etc. 

This watershed moment perhaps should be an opportunity for Manx Care to consolidate their aims and objectives and clearly set out what patients, client and staff can expect from the lessons learned by these events.

 

It is a watershed for much more than Manx Care.

[Wavey Davey]

7 minutes ago, Beyond Belief said:

A tribunal, looking into how documents were disclosed at an earlier hearing, was told Dr Rosalind Ranson only obtained all documents about her after submitting a Data Access Request.

This is just just typical of the Manx legal system, corrupt to the core, withholding evidence, continuously hide behind a veil of secrecy.  Westminster is going to have a field day.  IoM advocates/lawyers have got away with murder for years and never been held accountable and it continues to this very day.  The Courts will never hold their own friends/colleagues to account and so the corruption will continue.    

Lawyers can only present to court documents and evidence that they have been given. How is it the lawyers fault that the DHSC withheld information from the court? 

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

He probably did ask for advice, he's just busy remembering where he hid the email.

He didn't ask during the pandemic, unlikely to now.

[Non-Believer]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is a watershed for much more than Manx Care.

"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down". 

Parallels...?

[Gladys]

37 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well that leads back to the question of whether the AGC is opposed to or conniving in the DHSC strategy of trying repeatedly to delay stuff.  Certainly they seem to have accepted the Disclosure Hearing taking place, until the DHSC changed their mind at the last minute, but that would also be the best strategy for the maximum delay.

But Departments don't have to accept the AG's advice, because it is the Departments who are the legal entities and they can litigate and seek their own representation as they like.

What if the AG's gave guidance on disclosure and it wasn't followed, to the letter?  As has been pointed out, a lawyer can only work on what they have been given. If it was incomplete, perhaps the right thing to do is withdraw?

Not sure about your last paragraph though.  I can see there may be times when the AG does not have the expertise in a given area, but we really don't see private firms being brought in very often. 

[Wavey Davey]

Just now, Gladys said:

I can see there may be times when the AG does not have the expertise in a given area, but we really don't see private firms being brought in very often. 

It looks like one member of the AGs Chambers had been called to the stand today. Which I assume then conflicted the AGs Chambers as legal representative of the DHSC. Hence an independent lawyer being engaged at last minute. 

[Two-lane]

11 minutes ago, Beyond Belief said:

after submitting a Data Access Request.

I do not understand the process here - presumably  the Request goes through the Information Commissioner. Does he have direct access to the data bases, does his request carry more weight, does he know how to better phrase a request?

A point mentioned by Moulton was that (in approximately terms) the searches were restricted to particular phrase e.g."Rosalind Ranson", thus ensuring that references to "Dr Ranson" or "RR" were missed.

I recall seeing a case earlier this year, I believe also involving Manx Care, where the search was similarly limited. If it was also Manx Care it would seem that this is not an accidental event - it is a deliberate method of hiding data.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, manxfisherman said:

Hoopers doing the twitter thing again, repeatedly failing to understand that he has constituents that he's supposed to represent 

There was a rather interesting exchange on Twitter where Hooper appeared to confirm that the DHSC would not lift client immunity between itself and the AGC.  Normally any communication between someone and their lawyers is absolutely protected from being exhibited in court, but the client can agree to allow this if they want.

Hooper blethered on about the Tribunal not asking for consent but ordering it, but the Tribunal would know about the privilege rule (and so would any lawyer) and the requirement for consent would be implied.  So the DHSC has the legal right to keep this secret.  But this is hiding something because of the legal technicality that one of the participants happens to be the lawyer of the other, especially where both are departments of the same government and so the real client is the public.  It doesn't look good.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

I do not understand the process here - presumably  the Request goes through the Information Commissioner. Does he have direct access to the data bases, does his request carry more weight, does he know how to better phrase a request?

A point mentioned by Moulton was that (in approximately terms) the searches were restricted to particular phrase e.g."Rosalind Ranson", thus ensuring that references to "Dr Ranson" or "RR" were missed.

I recall seeing a case earlier this year, I believe also involving Manx Care, where the search was similarly limited. If it was also Manx Care it would seem that this is not an accidental event - it is a deliberate method of hiding data.

No, I think it goes straight to the holder of the data. The Information Commissioner only gets involved if there is non-compliance. 

[Wavey Davey]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

No, I think it goes straight to the holder of the data. The Information Commissioner only gets involved if there is non-compliance. 

It does. But the request relies on more than some total moron clerk to put “Dr Ranson” into a search feature on the system. People are entitled to all data held on them. So all reasonable steps need to be taken to track that data down not some clueless idiot bashing phrases into the search function. 

[Roger Mexico]

13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

What if the AG's gave guidance on disclosure and it wasn't followed, to the letter?  As has been pointed out, a lawyer can only work on what they have been given. If it was incomplete, perhaps the right thing to do is withdraw?

Well we won't know what the guidance was because the DHSC won't release it (see my previous comment).  But if the AGC withdrew because of conflict of interest, then I can't help thinking that they should have withdrawn as soon as they knew there would be a Disclosure Hearing in early May, while they still seem to have been representing the DHSC until the start of August.  So the guidance may reflected badly on either party or on both.  But he won't know unless client privilege is lifted - which is in Hooper's direct power (as the Minister) and which I suspect may be what does for him if he doesn't.

[Roger Mexico]

25 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Not sure about your last paragraph though.  I can see there may be times when the AG does not have the expertise in a given area, but we really don't see private firms being brought in very often. 

Andrew Langan-Newton mentioned at the weekend that this happened much less now than it used to, simply because the AGC employ so many lawyers with so many specialisms.  Why own a dog and then pay another one to bark for you?  But Departments are still entitled to get outside legal representation if they want to, though there may be certain processes to go through.

[Kopek]

33 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

but he's backing whatever the DHSC does, rather than questioning it

You don't know what Hooper has been saying behind the scenes, what he has said in the Comin meetings regarding this. If he has made his stance obvious then it would be hard for Cannan to dump him as a fall guy, he would only reveal the truth behind the actions? If I were him I would be writing the resignation speech and laying the blame were it belongs, take that Alf !!!

From the original Moulton interview it sounds as tho he has the consequences figured and is sure of his position in Comin and good luck to him, that is the sort of ' not toeing the line' that we need!!!!

[Roger Mexico]

4 minutes ago, Kopek said:

You don't know what Hooper has been saying behind the scenes, what he has said in the Comin meetings regarding this. If he has made his stance obvious then it would be hard for Cannan to dump him as a fall guy, he would only reveal the truth behind the actions? If I were him I would be writing the resignation speech and laying the blame were it belongs, take that Alf !!!

I know what he's been saying in front of the scenes though and if he wanted to distance himself sufficiently , he could have done.  If Cannan sacked him because of that, it would mean that Cannan was making himself vulnerable.