IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Dirty Buggane]

You know that the assholes will do nothing, this needs referring to the powers that be in the mainland by the governor that the island has become corrupt. And is unable to self govern, causing the residents to suffer and the few to proliferate. 

[Shake me up Judy]

Couldn't disagree with that. Is there any precedent of the people directly petitioning the Governor ? I hope that at the very least he's asking questions, and keeping Westminster fully informed about what's going on.

[Cassie2]

https://gef.im/2023/05/09/why-cant-we-see-terms-of-reference/

Why was the falsification and withholding of documents not referred by Comin to the police for investigation. That is clearly what would have been the appropriate action to take - and they are of course already fully publicly funded. Why a private sector outfit like Expol and at yet further vast expense to the public purse?

And as a highly paid (and new?) supplier to the IOMG how could they be equally guaranteed to be properly objective?

This is from the later part of the piece in the link at the start above:

Mr Moulton said: ‘I’m surprised that the DHSC were happy to release the results of the full Expol reports following a FOI request- even though the tribunal was still sitting .

‘Yet now the findings are in – costing the Government millions of pounds – they don’t want to tell the public what the costly report was asked actually asked to investigate! This must be of concern, not only to the Chief Minister and MHKs, following his statement to the House of Keys today to restore confidence in his administration and to sort out this massive failure by his government.

‘In the meantime we are all left to only guess what the DHSC are trying to stop from becoming public!’'

Edited May 10, 2023 by Cassie2

[asitis]

Terms of ref are on Manx Radio site ! I stared open mouthed at clause 13.

[Ghost Ship]

Sorry if I've missed it but can anyone point me to a link to the Expol report looking into the disclosure (or rather non-disclosure!) of documents?

I thought I saw one here a few weeks ago but can't find it.

Thanks

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, asitis said:

Terms of ref are on Manx Radio site ! I stared open mouthed at clause 13.

I’m not sure that’s something to cause concern. In fact I think it’s standard.

You don’t want people being tipped off or alerted and the possibility of witnesses being influenced and police investigation and trial impeded..

Its proper to report back to client for client to decide whether to report to the police.

likewise, suggestions that the police should investigate. These were private civil proceedings. Doesn’t matter that a government department was a party. Dr Ranson made the accusations. The tribunal wanted to investigate.

Dr Ranson didn’t really participate or engage her own experts, she could have. But the last thing she would have wanted was a criminal investigation and her claim put on hold whilst a prosecution took 3 or 4 years to complete.

[asitis]

9 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’m not sure that’s something to cause concern. In fact I think it’s standard.

You don’t want people being tipped off or alerted and the possibility of witnesses being influenced and police investigation and trial impeded..

Its proper to report back to client for client to decide whether to report to the police.

likewise, suggestions that the police should investigate. These were private civil proceedings. Doesn’t matter that a government department was a party. Dr Ranson made the accusations. The tribunal wanted to investigate.

Dr Ranson didn’t really participate or engage her own experts, she could have. But the last thing she would have wanted was a criminal investigation and her claim put on hold whilst a prosecution took 3 or 4 years to complete.

But also would give them the chance to not proceed ! i.e. involve the Police.

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, asitis said:

But also would give them the chance to not proceed ! i.e. involve the Police.

That’s the employers choice, isn’t it. It’s saying, if you find something that could be a crime, stop, tell us, don’t prejudice any police enquiry or prosecution. If I recall that’s exactly what happened at Abbottswood.

Remember, this was an investigation specifically for civil proceedings, conducted to balance of probability standards of proof, not beyond reasonable doubt, at the specific request of, and for, use in the proceedings.

The police don’t do private investigative work.

[Moghrey Mie]

44 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That’s the employers choice, isn’t it. It’s saying, if you find something that could be a crime, stop, tell us, don’t prejudice any police enquiry or prosecution. If I recall that’s exactly what happened at Abbottswood.

Remember, this was an investigation specifically for civil proceedings, conducted to balance of probability standards of proof, not beyond reasonable doubt, at the specific request of, and for, use in the proceedings.

The police don’t do private investigative work.

Ex-police do that. https://www.expol.co.uk/expol-private-investigators/isle-of-man/

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Ex-police do that. https://www.expol.co.uk/expol-private-investigators/isle-of-man/

Not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Yes, that’s what expol do. That’s why they were engaged. But it’s also why the employer would say stop and report back to us if you think you’ve discovered anything that might be criminal.

[Thomas Dalby]

On 5/9/2023 at 8:41 PM, Roxanne said:

Why on earth didn't they just say who it was who took responsibility for giving the appeal the go ahead. This has now been going on for weeks. Surely they know that by fudging it, speculation is only going to build?

We know it wasn't AC. We know I wasn't RC. We know it wasn't the AG.

So who?

What were the points of law on which the first appeal and the second appeal were made?

[Kopek]

There were two people to make the decision to appeal. One was with the DHSC or the AGs dept and the other was Cannan offering his ''opinion''.

Now, if Cannans opinion was not to bother, then that exonerates him?

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

There were two people to make the decision to appeal. One was with the DHSC or the AGs dept and the other was Cannan offering his ''opinion''.

Now, if Cannans opinion was not to bother, then that exonerates him?

Except that wasn't Cannan's opinion.  We know this because he told us so in Tynwald:

As outlined in my responses, my involvement at the end of September 2022 rose from a paper from the Department of Health and Social Care to the Council of Ministers. My involvement centred on relaying to the Department my view that the appeal should proceed on a point of principle, the principle being around the vital importance of legal professional privilege held by Government Departments. This principle has significance beyond the Department of Health and Social Care. The timings of the filing requirements of the Court meant that there was insufficient time for this cross-Government issue to be considered by the Council of Ministers, and so to assist the Department of Health and Social Care I provided a view prior to the filing deadline.

(my bold) The only problem with this narrative is that we know from Deemster Corlett's ruling:

7.  LPP therefore was not an issue at the appeal hearing and had probably not been an issue since the EET’s clarification on 9 August 2022

So LPP was never even considered at the appeal and the government had known this for nearly two months.  So the DHSC paper either contained false information that misled everyone else or Cannan is not telling the truth.

[interestedman]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/28/officials-altered-records-in-bisexual-prison-officer-case-judge-says

The tribunal found the Ministry of Justice had failed to disclose documents, carried out “inappropriate redactions” and altered documents.

“The credibility of the respondent’s [Ministry of Justice] evidence is sadly lacking. Two documents have been altered without explanation,” the tribunal judgment states. The MoJ has confirmed an internal review into the case is under way.

One page in the Guardian.  Probably a couple of bollockings issued.

Meanwhile on the isle of Man.......................

[code99]

The Manx Green Party has also contributed to the Dr Ranson's case debate. They mentioned that old 'crowd-pleaser' - the 'Lisvane report', which had been successfully buried by Tynwald. It is probably worth revisiting some of that report's findings. Interestingly, the word 'accountability', a word (a principle?) that the IOMG seemed to have been avoiding like a plague, came up in Andrew Langan-Newton's pitch on Manx Radio. 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/clear-lack-of-accountability-preventing-tynwald-challenging-government/