Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

Even bigger boss lady?

And open up another claim for constructive dismissal?

I have a sneaking feeling that because one of the remedies will be to be able to offer reinstatement, this will be causing some angst in IOMG as that will have an impact on the money settlement.  . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

In reality no Minister is going to make any sort of intervention in a legal case without getting legal advice.  How else would they know that they have the vires?  And in any case the AG actually sits in on CoMin meetings, so they'll get his legal advice anyway.  

It's long been observed that the role of AG is conflicted in all sorts of ways (even before the most recent bouts of empire-building).  But it suits a lot of people to keep it that way.

Not according to our Rob

James - as the new DHSC Minister, I can assure you that I have done everything possible over the past two weeks to take this matter forward to a point of remedy and settlement as quickly as possible, in order to bring closure for everyone involved. 

Unfortunately, there is a single clause from the August judgement that needs to be challenged, and it is vitally important that we get that legal ruling. 

Your comments are completely out of context, and unfortunately they are based on almost zero knowledge around this very difficult employment and legal case. 

That said, if it was in my gift to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion tomorrow I would - and I will be working tirelessly to get to a point of remedy and settlement as soon as possible.”

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

Your comments are completely out of context, and unfortunately they are based on almost zero knowledge around this very difficult employment and legal case. 

 

Ace. Love it when government gobs get all 'you plebs just can't comprehend what we're dealing with here'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, John Wright said:

Unfortunately, there is a single clause from the August judgement that needs to be challenged, and it is vitally important that we get that legal ruling. 

Your comments are completely out of context, and unfortunately they are based on almost zero knowledge around this very difficult employment and legal case. 

What can be so vitally important about getting this legal ruling?  What are Mr Callister and DHSC trying so desperately to cover up.? 

It is the word' Vitally', which kind of gives the game away.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2022 at 9:36 PM, Zulu said:

What I would like to know is how someone who was medivac off the Island with a serious heart attach and operated on in Liverpool, had now been put on a waiting list both for the ECG 24 hour monitor and the rehab as there is a long waiting list and has to wait at least 2 months for the rehab. Something is very wrong here!

If you're talking about the Cardiac Rehab course it's because they run one at a time and the course is about 8 weeks long. You wouldn't want to do that immediately after surgery anyway - need to build up activity levels. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Holte End said:
12 hours ago, John Wright said:

Unfortunately, there is a single clause from the August judgement that needs to be challenged, and it is vitally important that we get that legal ruling. 

Your comments are completely out of context, and unfortunately they are based on almost zero knowledge around this very difficult employment and legal case. 

What can be so vitally important about getting this legal ruling?  What are Mr Callister and DHSC trying so desperately to cover up.? 

It is the word' Vitally', which kind of gives the game away.

It’s the “vitally” which makes it art…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

It’s the “vitally” which makes it art…

 

1 hour ago, Holte End said:

 

What can be so vitally important about getting this legal ruling?  What are Mr Callister and DHSC trying so desperately to cover up.? 

It is the word' Vitally', which kind of gives the game away.

 

 

12 hours ago, manxfisherman said:

Ace. Love it when government gobs get all 'you plebs just can't comprehend what we're dealing with here'. 

According to the press reports, even his own lawyers didn’t consider it vital. They are alleged to have said they didn’t know why they were at the appeal yesterday. And it was his vital appeal, allegedly 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

even his own lawyers didn’t consider it vital. They are alleged to have said they didn’t know why they were at the appeal yesterday. And it was his vital appeal, allegedly 

It sounds like the new minister has succumbed to The Politician’s Syllogism - and so early in his reign!

Still, at least we know he’s a Man of Action, even if he’s not sure what the reason for the action is…

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

According to the press reports, even his own lawyers didn’t consider it vital. They are alleged to have said they didn’t know why they were at the appeal yesterday. And it was his vital appeal, allegedly 

Couldn't make it up.

At least he didn't get to out his name on this before next Tynwald.

https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2022-GD-0069.pdf

Sounds good but slightly repetitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Hardly an equivalent job and outside of her core expertise, surely? 

I was joking but actually after what they have put her through I think it could be solely based on her experience gained..better that any qualification. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DHSC loses again in the Ransom case: https://www.judgments.im/content/Judgment 111022.pdf.  This time it was about a member of the AGC team being required to provide evidence to the tribunal, which the DHSC wanted to be blocked.

"While I agree that it is somewhat odd that Ms Heeley was not named in the oral submissions to the EET on 29 July 2022, this does not entail my finding that she was not properly to be made the subject of an order. As I have held, I consider that she was and is capable of providing factual, relevant evidence to the EET."  Deemster Corlett

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...