IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, Apple said:

Maybe it is me but surely as the Minister of the DHSC his (RC) comments should be made available to all, not just his followers on Facebook. When did the social media replace the official Government media platform?. 

Actually it's worse than that, because it looks like that was posted to to the IOM News and Politics Facebook account, which is a closed group, though with a fairly large membership.  At least Callister's own Facebook account is open for anyone to read, whether on Facebook or not.

[Apple]

6 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually it's worse than that, because it looks like that was posted to to the IOM News and Politics Facebook account, which is a closed group, though with a fairly large membership.

Not with me or anyone I know but thats my own fault I guess.

Is it really any wonder why politicians seem to be held in such low esteem. 

[Boris Johnson]

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

Fear not Rob the legal eagle is on the case mansplaining something we already knew.

FFS Mr Callister "Rob" If you don't mind. 

             Plus points on your first couple of weeks:-

On a plus note  - -- -   You are actually now in a ministerial placement, a very important one at that, and sound a lot more lucid than I. and most thought you did- That is. VERY GOOD 🙂

             The down side:-

You are just like everyone else that gets a Ministers position, spouting the CRA1P that your CS hand you to say. That is NOT VERY GOOD 🙂

If you dont think this is a true reflection of your position and you are willing to swear that you wrote your own 

speech, that  are all your own words/ thoughts, then fair enough, but I don't think you did? Did you?

I tend to lean toward the - You have been supplied a bullsh1t speech by your CS and to keep the "Friendly" atmosphere you have just walked into, your department of Health , you will read verbatim what they give you.

I really wish I was wrong but I am 99.9 % sure this is how it works. In fact, from friends that have been MHKs that is EXACTLY how it was, and I am sure still is?

 

P.S Mr Callister, you do seem to do good for your voters in Onchan. Which is half the battle.

No offence in this post aimed at you in particular, just the whole IOM gov system,......................

[asitis]

It doesn't pay to not toe the line !

That is the problem in a nutshell.

[cissolt]

Is full statement in due course the new point by point rebuttal?

Lawrie also waxed lyrical about having privileged knowledge and all would be revealed, still waiting to find out what that was.

[Boo Gay'n]

A nice blog from Edge Law here, with some more comment about the most recent court case, including a key quote from the judgement -

The extent to which our system of civil justice depends on the integrity of advocates in this respect (for example in ensuring disclosure of relevant documents which are unfavourable to the client) cannot be overemphasized”. 

[Mercenary]

22 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

A nice blog from Edge Law here, with some more comment about the most recent court case, including a key quote from the judgement -

The extent to which our system of civil justice depends on the integrity of advocates in this respect (for example in ensuring disclosure of relevant documents which are unfavourable to the client) cannot be overemphasized”. 

Well after the departure of Greenhow, Ashford, Ewart, Malone, Conie (and presumably Magson if she was still available) over the affair itself, now the handling of the affair by the AGCs is coming into question I would be nervous if I was the named individual with the disclosure process being one of the key issues. 

[Apple]

14 hours ago, Mercenary said:

now the handling of the affair by the AGCs is coming into question I would be nervous if I was the named individual with the disclosure process being one of the key issues. 

I don't think there is anything left in this that we will hear about. Any internal measures against any individual (s) or costs and pay outs will all be confidential. 

I hear some more CQC reports are now in and being prepared for release perhaps this week. Rumours abound that they are not as bad as feared, but I believe that some areas have been given a chance to respond and advise on things that were potentially inaccurate. Fair enough. Safety due to staffing shortages may not be a feature.

[Jarndyce]

7 hours ago, Apple said:

believe that some areas have been given a chance to respond and advise on things that were potentially inaccurate.

Standard procedure with these reports.

7 hours ago, Apple said:

Safety due to staffing shortages may not be a feature.

With an average reported vacancy rate of 20% (and some areas having vacancy rates approaching 40%), a view on safety due to staffing would be perfectly legitimate.   Surely the only way it’s not a feature would be if Manx Care had enough leverage to make CQC leave this aspect out of the final report?

[Apple]

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

Surely the only way it’s not a feature would be if Manx Care had enough leverage to make CQC leave this aspect out of the final report?

Safety is one of the key areas of the CQC remit so that would be unusual. Staff shortages are probably behind the advice this week to try and avoid NoblesA and E, (eg needs 5 staff but only 2 on duty I heard at one point) and also the relaxation on accompanying visitors (so that they can keep an eye on patients maybe ?). Depends also on when the assessment is made as staffing figures can be made variable by relocating staff on a shift by shift basis, which I understand happens quite a fair bit. 

 

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

Standard procedure with these reports.

There is no point to the CQC unless they capture the "warts and all' scenarios.  It would be human nature to attempt to present a better picture to reassure the public and indeed the staff that all is getting better.

On a different matter on the Dr Ranson case there was a "dismissal" announced just at the start of the Tribunals hearings of the Chief Operating Officer by the new Chief Executive Officer spoken about in the tribunal iirrc. I think it was almost an instant thing but I wonder if it may have cast a little more light on what precisely was going. on at that time. and before. An opportunity missed perhaps.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Apple
added last bit

[Jarndyce]

22 minutes ago, Apple said:

An opportunity missed perhaps.

Perhaps…but there was plenty in the tribunal about the COO effectively acting on behalf of Magson in ways which were calculated to undermine Dr Ranson’s position.   Also plenty of anecdotal stuff on this forum about the COO and her circle of allies, old friends and family who ended up on Bronze team (allegedly).

29 minutes ago, Apple said:

I wonder if it may have cast a little more light on what precisely was going. on

Was she dismissed primarily because of her actions; or primarily as a damage limitation exercise given the oncoming tribunal hearing?  Maybe a bit of both - but I suspect the COO would have generated more heat than light…

[Ghost Ship]

On 10/11/2022 at 9:56 PM, Roger Mexico said:

It's like watching a goldfish trying to explain quantum physics.

Of course if you actually read paragraph 32, the Deemster uses it to demolish all the 'arguments' that the DHSC put forward and to reiterate that Legal Privilege was never under threat.  Indeed it turns out that the Tribunal had written to the DHSC to make this clear as far back as 9 August (see para 6), so why the appeal wasn't stopped at that point is a mystery (which appears to be the Deemster's opinion as well).

What may be going on here is hinted at in another paragraph:

27.  It is clear from the authorities that a failure by a solicitor or an advocate to discharge his or her duties in relation to disclosure can lead not only to adverse inferences being drawn against the client, but also to wasted costs orders against the lawyer and/or a contempt finding. The extent to which our system of civil justice depends on the integrity of advocates in this respect (for example in ensuring disclosure of relevant documents which are unfavourable to the client) cannot be overemphasized.

In other words it was the job of the AG's Chambers to make sure that their client (the DHSC) not only knew they must disclose everything, but to do their best to make it happen.  Indeed: The best way for the solicitor to fulfil his own duty and to ensure that his client’s duty is fulfilled too is to take possession of all the original documents as early as possible. (para 25).

But of course we know from Ashford's squealings that Magson was the one who decided what was relevant and what wasn't - completely against the law.

One of the things that most surprised me reading the original Employment Tribunal from May was the fact that the DHSC's lawyers (the AG's dept I presume) seemed to play only a peripheral role in the process of disclosure.

In the case of Magson, for example, she seems to have been left completely unsupervised by the AG's office in respect of identifying what documents she was required to disclose and actually ensuring that they were disclosed.   It's not surprising that getting documents out of her was so difficult - nor that it probably prejudiced the DHSC's case.

The AG should have sent somebody over to the UK to supervise Magson's disclosure.  If she refused to cooperate at least the AG's office could tell the court "We tried our best to ensure that Mrs Magson complied with our client's duty of disclosure, but she refused to cooperate and as she was outside our jurisdiction we could do nothing to enforce her compliance."

Of course that doesn't explain any alleged failure etc of disclosure by the department itself of documents and minutes located physically on the island.  The AG's people should have been through it with a fine-tooth comb.*

As a NHS manager I've been involved in a disclosure process and it was pretty much entirely run by our legal advisors, not by the managers involved. 

If the lawyers didn't do it I wouldn't have thought they were protecting their client's interests.  If they don't do it things might get "lost" that shouldn't have been.  (Always embarrassing when you are discovered not to have disclosed something in your possession that has come to light elsewhere.  A bit like the 'phone conversation or text that the Director of Public Health had failed to disclose but which she then sought to rely on in the tribunal!)

 

*Maybe lawyers from the AG's office did supervise the disclosure process but they just didn't make a very good job of it?

Edited October 13, 2022 by Ghost Ship

[Roger Mexico]

45 minutes ago, Apple said:

On a different matter on the Dr Ranson case there was a "dismissal" announced just at the start of the Tribunals hearings of the Chief Operating Officer by the new Chief Executive Officer spoken about in the tribunal iirrc. I think it was almost an instant thing but I wonder if it may have cast a little more light on what precisely was going. on at that time. and before. An opportunity missed perhaps.

If you're referring to the dismissal of Angela Murray as referred to in the original Tribunal:

736. On 31st December 2021, almost 12 months later, Dr Ranson wrote to Mrs Cope hoping to get her to testify on her behalf in the Tribunal. At page Z426, Dr Ranson reminded Mrs Cope by email of a prior conversation early in 2021 and it made a number of pertinent points including this one regarding Ms Murray:

“You told me that you had never encountered behaviour as you witnessed for yourself from Angela Murray and you told me that you had 11 members of staff come and tell you about their treatment at the hands of Angela Murray and that was why you summarily dismissed her. There is a culture at Noble’s – which Kathryn was fully aware of – of bullying and threatening.”

the dismissal took place a year before the Tribunal started:

142. The evidence of Mrs Cope was that Ms Murray, the COO during 2020 and into 2021, was dismissed, a decision that had to be endorsed by Miss Magson because Manx Care had not yet officially started. Ms Murray’s date of departure of 8th February 2021 was confirmed by Ms Heeley and was apparently officially by mutual agreement. Mrs Cope’s evidence was that she was concerned to find a bullying problem and not just involving Ms Murray.

Technically before Manx Care had even started and showing that Cope realised how bad things were early on.

[Apple]

3 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

In the case of Magson, for example, she seems to have been left completely unsupervised by the AG's office in respect of identifying what documents she was required to disclose and actually ensuring that they were disclosed.   It's not surprising that getting documents out of her was so difficult - nor that it probably prejudiced the DHSC's case.

The AG should have sent somebody over to the UK to supervise Magson's disclosure. 

I can't think why that didn't happen and they could also have collected the "day books" issue which apparently been destroyed?

I can see the problems a bit clearer now about inviting people from across to some of these posts. Poor judgement in some cases.

 

[Ghost Ship]

One of the points of a series of daybooks is to provide a contemporaneous and continuous record of what you've been doing, who you've been meeting etc from day to day in your job.

If I were a lawyer representing a client who was required to disclose such evidence, I think one of the first things I'd do is look at the daybooks, and the second thing I'd do is ask where the others representing the gaps are!