IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[2112]

52 minutes ago, asitis said:

All the wriggling, and not me guv by departments is achieving, is further burning of taxpayers cash.

You've been exposed, now take your medicine and make sure this cannot happen again.

Areas of Government here are actually unfit to be granted executive power over taxpayers money, we desperately  need an auditor general with teeth to reign these people and departments in. The new buzzword needs to be ACCOUNTABLE to the taxpayers !

IOMG don’t do ACCOUNTABILITY or ACCOUNTABLE. 

[WTF]

33 minutes ago, 2112 said:

IOMG don’t do ACCOUNTABILITY or ACCOUNTABLE. 

or ACCOUNTS properly either.

[Beyond Belief]

On 10/14/2022 at 11:03 AM, John Wright said:

That’s not the point. I’m talking about the lawyer’s duty.

Ive had a litigation terms of business letter for 205+ years that explains it in simple plain English. I don’t take on litigation now, but anyone advising in litigation has a duty to give the advice about how to disclose properly.

Unfortunately, they don't JW, and whilst there are many good advocates/lawyers on the IoM that would, there is equally many of those who don't, esp where their client have deep pockets. How many lives, families, and businesses are destroyed because of those said lawyers being economical with the truth to gain the upper hand? These individual lawyers/advocates and their respective firms are never held accountable, and the lousy practice continues. It is a sorry state of affairs and, sadly, one that will never change. 

[forestboy]

1 hour ago, Beyond Belief said:

Unfortunately, they don't JW, and whilst there are many good advocates/lawyers on the IoM that would, there is equally many of those who don't, esp where their client have deep pockets. How many lives, families, and businesses are destroyed because of those said lawyers being economical with the truth to gain the upper hand? These individual lawyers/advocates and their respective firms are never held accountable, and the lousy practice continues. It is a sorry state of affairs and, sadly, one that will never change. 

Name firms. 

[Boo Gay'n]

16 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Do you have any actual evidence that this is “definitely going on”?

There is a fair amount of comment in English legal circles (see this as an example), and our law is modelled closely on the law across.

[John Wright]

25 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

There is a fair amount of comment in English legal circles (see this as an example), and our law is modelled closely on the law across.

 

19 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

One thing that is definitely going on is that claimants and their advisers are pushing whistleblowing because it gives them - potentially - loads more dosh https://www.mirs.org.im/media/1166/how-eet-calculates-the-award.pdf.

Yes, there are a few more claims, and the article you link to explains why. What is doesn't say at all is that claimants are making up whistle blowing claims, which is what you have tried to imply, to get enhanced awards. In fact DWF article is advising that employers need to have appropriate polices in place and offers to sell employers training

[Kopek]

A lawyer may advise their client to disclose all documents but....... that doesn't mean the client will do so.

In a lower profile case it may never come to light?

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

What is doesn't say at all is that claimants are making up whistle blowing claims, which is what you have tried to imply, to get enhanced awards.

Thanks, JW: beat me to it!

In fact, considering how the NHS treats whistleblowers, I'm not sure that anyone would take the risk just for the money.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Jarndyce
addition

[Ghost Ship]

23 hours ago, Apple said:

First Ive heard about that.

This was the comment here, 

As I said, it seemed to be implying that Dr Ranson had previously done something similar...

[Boo Gay'n]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

 

Yes, there are a few more claims, and the article you link to explains why. What is doesn't say at all is that claimants are making up whistle blowing claims, which is what you have tried to imply, to get enhanced awards. In fact DWF article is advising that employers need to have appropriate polices in place and offers to sell employers training

I accept your point John and Jarndyce's later comments.  There is no doubt in my mind that Dr Ranson was treated badly by an organisation that has bullying and vindictiveness 'in its DNA'.

Perhaps clumsily, I was trying to discuss how Part IV of the Employment Act could be misused by the unscrupulous - but I know that I didn't say that!

[ian rush]

JWs point about his letter of engagement and disclosure advice doesn’t deal with the issue that privilege in that advice would be that of the client to waive, not his as lawyer. 
 

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, ian rush said:

JWs point about his letter of engagement and disclosure advice doesn’t deal with the issue that privilege in that advice would be that of the client to waive, not his as lawyer. 
 

I’d covered that in earlier posts.

Ive a separate disclosure obligation letter which sets the duty out in full. How to search data, key word searches, speculative searches,  all sorts.

I try and keep client communication to e-mail and paper. Dealing with business via social media is difficult to file and keep tabs on. Same for clients and disclosure.

Its not actually litigation privilege attracting advice. It doesn’t relate to the issues. But it is covered by confidentiality.

Confidentiality/privilege is a minefield. The purpose of such letters is to cover my back.

[Roger Mexico]

On 10/15/2022 at 6:28 PM, cissolt said:

Interesting comments from Chris Robertshaw.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-HYCKAuES4Y

How much blame should be laid at the door of the AG?  And when will our mhks get a backbone?

Well many people (including Robertshaw) have been pointing to the way that power was concentrated in the hands of the AG for some years, and it was made worse by the empire-building that meant they took over more aspects of tendering and charity regulation.  There was even a mad plan to set up a public defenders service, which would mean they would be representing both sides in a court case.  But it was interesting to hear from the inside just how much deference there was to his views on everything - even though in the end he's only just another lawyer and one who will be conflicted in much of the advice he gives (and who decides if there is a conflict?  - the AG).

One thing that Robertshaw was technically wrong on was the President's ruling on the sub judice.  The Standing Orders do seem to prohibit discussion (with or without the AG's input) but they also allow the President to decide that something can discussed and there was no real reason not to discuss the wider issues here.

More important there's absolutely nothing to prevent Tynwald from amending its Standing Orders so as to amend the definition of sub judice to something closer to to reality in the rest of the world.  Normally parliamentarians have more freedom to discuss such matters that the rest of the population - not much less.  But maybe they like it that way in Tynwald, just as they like to defer to the AG's opinion rather than asking him to justify it or getting it checked.  Life's easier when you just see it as doing what you're told.

[Gladys]

You are probably right, RM, but do you think the President would exercise his decision based on advice from the AG?  Also, who is going to check the advice from the AG?  Can departments go to outside lawyers? 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Gladys

[Ghost Ship]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

...More important there's absolutely nothing to prevent Tynwald from amending its Standing Orders so as to amend the definition of sub judice to something closer to to reality in the rest of the world.  Normally parliamentarians have more freedom to discuss such matters that the rest of the population - not much less.  But maybe they like it that way in Tynwald, just as they like to defer to the AG's opinion rather than asking him to justify it or getting it checked.  Life's easier when you just see it as doing what you're told.

Both @Ham_N_Eggs and I suggested in the "Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?" thread on 17 and 19 May that Tynwald could easily have amended or temporarily suspended the relevant Standing Order if they'd wanted to.  But no, unlike any other democratic legislative assembly they'd prefer to be more restricted as to what subject matter they can discuss than people outside that assembly.

 

You also put the point very well yourself in the same thread:

No doubt the problem is the people who get elected are easily distracted by all the smoke and mirrors and ceremony attendant on Tynwald, and they don't have the confidence or assertiveness to stand up and say "Why can't we do that?"

And if they're told they can't do it because that's what the rules say:  "Well what's to stop us changing the rules?  We are Tynwald. This is an important matter that the electorate* wants discussed and we look weak if we can't do so."

 

*Or a couple of people on Manx Forums at least...