Two-lane Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, Banker said: Thought it was any Tynwald member? Could be. I really do not know. However, somewhat cynically, I would say that that does not narrow things down much. A completely external, independent, analysis would be better. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 A select committee of five MHKs won't do at all. Absolutely not. Needs to be much bigger than that and much more independent. I'd nominate ex MHK Chris Robertshaw to chair it, and a broad range of committee members. Rachel Glover for one. 5 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 Good to know that the “IOMG lawyer bods” haven’t blocked us yet…🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 7 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said: A select committee of five MHKs won't do at all. Absolutely not. Needs to be much bigger than that and much more independent. I'd nominate ex MHK Chris Robertshaw to chair it, and a broad range of committee members. Rachel Glover for one. It has to be comprised of people who are independent and without an axe to grind to be credible. I think both do not fall into that category. Certainly take evidence from them, but not have them as members. The committee will have to review actions of various people. If you put those people directly connected in any way, you cannot take the findings of that committee as independent and fair and nor will anyone giving evidence. That alone, shrinks the gene pool. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 Whatever the details, to be decided, good on Clare Christian for bringing this motion. She really has got the bit between her teeth, and thank goodness for it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 As the review is from the bottom to the top of the whole culture in government, it cannot be undertaken by anyone there, in any capacity, in my view. That is why some kind of involvement of the UK Ministry of Justice is vital. Otherwise, there is just too much scope for 'inconvenient truths' to be watered down or dismissed. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 1 hour 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. One concern that I have with this, as much as I and many others would like an investigation is the length of time. May 2024 is far too long, should really be as quick as possible, let’s face it, in some cases, a Tynpotwald Select Committee could report before December 2023. I have a feeling that many people will get off scot free, whilst any criticism will not result in any further resignation (s). Carry on Club Tynwald, Carry on Civil Service. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 13 minutes ago, Roxanne said: Whatever the details, to be decided, good on Clare Christian for bringing this motion. She really has got the bit between her teeth, and thank goodness for it. In a way, I suppose it’s a starting point, which could be moulded and changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassie2 Posted May 5, 2023 Author Share Posted May 5, 2023 (edited) 30 minutes ago, 2112 said: In a way, I suppose it’s a starting point, which could be moulded and changed. Sadly not. It is not what is required Far from it. It will be used as always to kick the can a year down the road and then this latest proposed entirely inappropriate and incestuous local Select Committee will issue another major meaningless fudge amounting to "Lessons have been learnt". Which they never are. And the bandwagon will roll on dragging the island's economic potential, its public services and its people's future even deeper down the toilet in what is an ever worsening Government and public sector cesspit run by and for the benefit of many self-serving, lazy, greedy, delusional, incompetent and outright dangerous mediocrities. Edited May 5, 2023 by Cassie2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 25 minutes ago, Roxanne said: Whatever the details, to be decided, good on Clare Christian for bringing this motion. She really has got the bit between her teeth, and thank goodness for it. You need to take a couple of cynicism tablets - extra strength. Although she may intend to achieve something, getting Tynwald to evaluate itself will not do anything for the public. Setting up a committee in a way that is guaranteed to produce a certain result is a dead-standard politician/Civil Service practice. If she is really trying to expose the problems here, she is being very naive. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 16 minutes ago, 2112 said: In a way, I suppose it’s a starting point, which could be moulded and changed. It needs to be changed to now - not in a year's time. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham_N_Eggs Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 29 minutes ago, Roxanne said: It needs to be changed to now - not in a year's time. They can amend it on the floor of Tynwald. Contact your MHK with your ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 Needs to be more of an independent commission working on it full time, not a part-time committee of 5 MHKs. With powers to call witnesses and independently published. Could be delivered in six months. I still say Chris Robertshaw should chair it. The public demand credibility and people that will get at the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craggy_steve Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Gladys said: As the review is from the bottom to the top of the whole culture in government, it cannot be undertaken by anyone there, in any capacity, in my view. That is why some kind of involvement of the UK Ministry of Justice is vital. Otherwise, there is just too much scope for 'inconvenient truths' to be watered down or dismissed. Just to point out that Greenhow originally came to IoMG from UK MoD, Magson & Ewart came from UK NHS, etc. Asking UK MoJ to review is rather like asking them to mark their own homework. There's been much in the UK news lately about the culture issues in UK Gov't and tensions between Senior Civil Servants & Ministers... they're hardly a paradigm of good governance, IoMG should aspire to be better than them! Dunno who to suggest tho'. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 this motion can be amended to make it an independent committee ,and take evidence from a number of parties outside Tynwald , as well as those deemed responsible on the inside , great shame that politics and governments involvement in this matter is seen as an all time low , the credibility of the island and its governance is surly at an all time low . too late now for lessons to be learned ! time to apportion blame and root out those who have brought shame into our once highly respected government and parliament 2 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.