Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Moddey Dhoo said:

There has been almost exclusively one narrative in the public domain since the outset. Notably Dr Ranson issued suit against Dr Alexson for trying to change it. While I have no doubt Dr Ranson was bullied and her exit very poorly handled, much of the relevant back story has never been told.

Indeed. There are always two sides to a story.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Major, major issues through DHSC over recent years and a complete embarrassment to the island.

Dont forget we still have these bubbling away.

The leading international law practice recently successfully defended the first defendant in the failed manslaughter prosecution of four local anaesthetists, and it also acts for Silverdale Care Limited (previously called Abbotswood).”

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

2 minutes ago, Ativa said:

Major, major issues through DHSC over recent years and a complete embarrassment to the island.

Dont forget we still have these bubbling away.

The leading international law practice recently successfully defended the first defendant in the failed manslaughter prosecution of four local anaesthetists, and it also acts for Silverdale Care Limited (previously called Abbotswood).”

I *believe* a settlement is still bumbling away with Abbotswood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why they want to exclude anything to do with the governments COVID response? It's directly related to the treatment of Dr Ranson, one might suggest her treatment was as a result of the government response.Screenshot_2023-05-05-18-50-55-68_965bbf4d18d205f782c6b8409c5773a4.thumb.jpg.8298daf9f0697fc1b222b7d1d7c17b0c.jpg

 

Edited by cissolt
Crop pic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Other than a decision directly linked to the handling of the Ranson litigation."  Not sure what that means.  Did any Covid response relate to the handling of the litigation rather than the events that led to the litigation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, cissolt said:

I wonder why they want to exclude anything to do with the governments COVID response? It's directly related to the treatment of Dr Ranson, one might suggest her treatment was as a result of the government response.Screenshot_2023-05-05-18-50-55-68_965bbf4d18d205f782c6b8409c5773a4.thumb.jpg.8298daf9f0697fc1b222b7d1d7c17b0c.jpg

 

if it's related then it's in, if it's not then it's excluded. Otherwise it's just copying the COVID review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

if it's related then it's in, if it's not then it's excluded. Otherwise it's just copying the COVID review.

It should be, but the exception to the exclusion is the handling of the litigation, ie how IOMG conducted itself as a party to the tribunal hearing.  That is how I read it. Take out handling and it works. 

Edited by Gladys
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...