Two-lane Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 2 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said: Would it not be usual for both sides to have there own investigation and outcome on any evidence, or did they say our experts looked at it and its all sound. Or is it tied into the renumeration, take our word for it and we will up the payout by 25% you know it makes sense. According to the Hollywood films I have seen, it is always a matter of "our expert witness (paid by us) vs your expert witness (paid by you)". It seemed strange to me that Ranson and team was willing to accept the Expol view as being uncontested. Simply saying "‘I am not sure of the independence of Expol.’ is not likely to sway anyone's opinion. It also seems strange to me that she only flicked through the Expol document - I would have been looking at the metadata... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 Another internal enquiry finding nothing. Surprise, surprise. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 (edited) "The hearing also revealed that Dr Ranson had originally sought a £6.2m payout after it was proved the DHSC had unfairly dismissed her from her role as the island’s medical director. This figure was revealed to have since fallen, but no new figure was detailed." This is a press release designed to get public opinion on side of your government...........Sad, really sad. Dr Ranson should get multi millions for the way your idiots at Nobles treated her. As I have said before, I left the island and took my business and my children's businesses', which they have since established' to the mainland mostly because of Nobles. Turn Nobles into a stabilise and ship off island place and that may make the island half way possible for people to move there. Thinking that people will move there in droves because it's got no violent crime is a Joke. I have far less crime where I live on the mainland in Yorkshire than I did where I lived on the island, I don't even need to lock my house or car doors anymore here. The TV reports you see are in slum estates and areas in the Mainland where you would not live unless born into them. In most rural areas and many small towns on the mainland there is far, far less crime than the rock. Edited January 19, 2023 by Blade Runner 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 22 minutes ago, Blade Runner said: "The hearing also revealed that Dr Ranson had originally sought a £6.2m payout after it was proved the DHSC had unfairly dismissed her from her role as the island’s medical director. This figure was revealed to have since fallen, but no new figure was detailed." This is a press release designed to get public opinion on side of your government...........Sad, really sad. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 5 hours ago, joebean said: Probably the most expected outcome; the least credible, but the most expected. Well done ExPol; you fulfilled your brief. Wouldn't want to jeopardize their nice fat government pensions now would they! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 1 minute ago, finlo said: Wouldn't want to jeopardize their nice fat government pensions now would they! Why would their findings jeopardise their pensions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Blade Runner said: Dr Ranson should get multi millions for the way your idiots at Nobles treated her. It wasn't those in Nobles to be fair - the people allegedly responsible were referred to in the Tribunal today. Having said that, it was harrowing to see what did happen today. Under questioning about her health, in my view her dignity and privacy was subject to inappropriate questioning by the DHSC counsel. As she herself described it, she felt "violated" and she had to be given time outs by the Tribunal due to her obvious inability to continue. After this is all done with then there must be some form of independent enquiry on the failures of the DHSC and their agents in this sorry saga. More to come. Leaving the Ranson situation aside, it seems contradictory that we have people in Government who spoke so passionately today about the failures of Manx Care and the mandate and yet no mention of the issues of bullying and harassment. If that is part of the "cultural change" that is required to change (and no-one has said it is ) then how can it be demonstrated if they are succeeding. It seems our MHKs are not interested. It isn't sub juice is it? Edited January 18, 2023 by Apple typo 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 5 minutes ago, Gladys said: Why would their findings jeopardise their pensions? Ex plod are hardly likely to rock the boat! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 6 minutes ago, finlo said: Ex plod are hardly likely to rock the boat! That may be your view, but do you really think they would lose their pension if their report was unfavourable? On what legal basis? They may worry about losing future government work, which would be interesting given there aren't too many PIs here, but their pension, really? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: That may be your view, but do you really think they would lose their pension if their report was unfavourable? On what legal basis? They may worry about losing future government work, which would be interesting given there aren't too many PIs here, but their pension, really? Ok maybe not loosing their pension but I'm sure they'd be elbowed off the teat if they didn't tow the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 4 minutes ago, finlo said: Ok maybe not loosing their pension but I'm sure they'd be elbowed off the teat if they didn't tow the line. Which teat if not the pension teat? As I say they may worry about jeopardising future government work but, there again, they may consider that it is their obligation to report honestly regardless of who their client is. That would be pretty fundamental to their market credibility. I know nothing about them or the investigation, but really it is a leap of conspiratorial suspicion to think they would fabricate their findings. When this first came up, I did post about how the metadata would only tell you when the document was created and by whom, and alterations to it. Not whether the content was fabricated. For example, I could have attended a meeting last year and made notes, but only actually typed them up yesterday from those notes. Not good practice because it is better to prepare them as soon as you can to be sure the record is accurate and covers your recollection of the proceedings at the time rather than relying on your aged notes. But the document hasn't been fabricated, just made late and you shouldn't represent it as a record prepared contemporaneously. There again, you could have prepared a full record in manuscript at the time but only transcribed it now. Again, that is not fabrication. As Roger says, it is a bit of a sideshow. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 37 minutes ago, Apple said: Having said that, it was harrowing to see what did happen today. Under questioning about her health, in my view her dignity and privacy was subject to inappropriate questioning by the DHSC counsel. As she herself described it, she felt "violated" and she had to be given time outs by the Tribunal due to her obvious inability to continue. In recent years there have been occasions when an English judge has been criticised for allowing oppressive questioning of witnesses by lawyers. In this case I assume the chairman of the tribunal could have stopped the questioning if he thought it appropriate to do so - clearly he did not think that the questioning was unduly oppressive. The lawyer is doing what he is paid to do - he is working under instructions from the DHSC. Who in the DHSC set the parameters for the approach? Is the minister involved or does he just read from a script he has been given? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhipMeHouston Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 I'm getting a feeling from the media, and gef, are building up some narrative to portray the Dr in a bad light and giving absolutely zilch on what has caused all this sorry mess down the memory hole. I hope her team have their own experts to counteract the DHSC's in cross examination or whatever they call it. Its already established publicly how poor the clerical skills were in preparing such documents... As bad as this is going to be on the taxpayer there needs to be justice to force the political will to say enough is enough on the bullies. They have disgraced their public duty, and not one has been publicly shamed by this media but rather the collective tarnishing and demoralising the caring and professional medics,nurses and staff that have to share the same the reputation of such an organisation. 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 10 minutes ago, Two-lane said: In this case I assume the chairman of the tribunal could have stopped the questioning if he thought it appropriate to do so - clearly he did not think that the questioning was unduly oppressive. I wouldn't presume to know what the Chair thought. Or any barrister come to that. ! I do know it was uncomfortable to watch and probably didn't help the DHSC's case much. Minister involvement, I wouldn't know. Take a guess. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, Apple said: I wouldn't presume to know what the Chair thought. Or any barrister come to that. ! I do know it was uncomfortable to watch and probably didn't help the DHSC's case much. Minister involvement, I wouldn't know. Take a guess. But you said she was given time out to recover her composure. What else should he do? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.