IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Roxanne]

1 hour ago, interestedman said:

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.......................

How Ben Plaistow found the courage and the energy to take this to court is a testament to his character. The whole thing was  shit show of a cover up from start to finish. They tried to break him and I the end they tried to get rid of him, but he wouldn't take it and now the dirt is being uncovered. You're right, it will probably lead to a couple of bollockings but what it does bring into the public's attention is that this bullying and coverup culture is endemic in every government sector.

And some think we should refer the handling of the Ranson case to the UK for investigation?

Not a bloody chance.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, code99 said:

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/

The Lisvane Report was actually far too timid and conservative and the effects of his proposals for LegCo have, if anything, made things a bit worse.  And, as you'd expect he tended to believe what he was told by civil servants.  But I thought I look to see what he said about the sub judice rule:

12. To preserve comity with the Courts, there is a sub judice rule,46 which operates at the point of criminal charge, or in civil proceedings when papers are filed with the Court for the commencement of proceedings. The latter provision brings the rule into operation at a very early stage (rather than when a case is set down for trial). I understand this has caused no difficulty, but the possibility remains of a pre-emptive or speculative filing of papers in order to inhibit parliamentary discussion, especially as there is no formal power of waiver given to either Presiding Officer.

He's actually wrong about the latter point.  For example all the relevant references to sub judice in Tynwald Standing Orders are followed by "subject to the discretion of the President", which implies a motion or question can be allowed.  The fact that he never does so or even realises he can, shows just how useless and easily manipulated Skelly is[1].

But more seriously Lisvane seems to think that sub judice is used in Tynwald in the normal way it is used in other countries and indeed in theory on the Isle of Man everywhere except on Prospect Hill[2].  But it is applied not just to bodies that wouldn't be included elsewhere (such as Tribunals) but all the way through the appeals process as well.  So it's not just Lisvane's point about sub judice starting too early, it finished too late as well and it is used to cover cases it should never have applied to in the first place.

 

[1]  Robertshaw observed at the most recent Tynwald that Skelly misheard something that the AG muttered and immediately tried to shut down discussion for no reason at all.

[2]  I've noticed journalists such as Moulton believing they can't discuss stuff because Tynwald can't.  This isn't true.

[offshoremanxman]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

[2]  I've noticed journalists such as Moulton believing they can't discuss stuff because Tynwald can't.  This isn't true.

Exactly two completely different standards of sub judice applies the Tynwald one being much more complex but only applying to Tynwald Court. 

[Roger Mexico]

20 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

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

Sorry I tried to upload the two parts of the Report last night, but they're both well over the MF 1.95 MB limit and I couldn't find anywhere that had.  Direct links are no use because of the servlet problem and the same thing seems to flummox archiving sites, so you'll need to go the FoI website.  These are the response details:

or you could just search for "Expol" or similar.  There's the response letter, the Expol report and the report from Riela, who are the people who actually did the work.

[Ghost Ship]

Thankyou Roger.

I've found the reports you mention.

Worst FoI website I've ever seen...

[Moddey Dhoo]

 

[Moddey Dhoo]

 

[Moddey Dhoo]

Just now, Moddey Dhoo said:

 

Crikey.....

[Roxanne]

15 minutes ago, Moddey Dhoo said:

 

Systemic bullying within health and possibly government itself.

60 doctors interviewed didn’t want to speak out for fear of reprisals.

Prof Banfield is referring IOM situation to U.K. government. 

No one has been held accountable.

Some really good people here to work with.

Manx politicians need to adopt a genuine wish to listen and to effect real change. 

Dr Ranson a committed doctor who believed passionately in giving a service to the IOM. 

BMA to support doctors. 

Transparency does not exist in government  

 

[Ghost Ship]

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The Lisvane Report was actually far too timid and conservative and the effects of his proposals for LegCo have, if anything, made things a bit worse.  And, as you'd expect he tended to believe what he was told by civil servants.  But I thought I look to see what he said about the sub judice rule:

12. To preserve comity with the Courts, there is a sub judice rule,46 which operates at the point of criminal charge, or in civil proceedings when papers are filed with the Court for the commencement of proceedings. The latter provision brings the rule into operation at a very early stage (rather than when a case is set down for trial). I understand this has caused no difficulty, but the possibility remains of a pre-emptive or speculative filing of papers in order to inhibit parliamentary discussion, especially as there is no formal power of waiver given to either Presiding Officer.

He's actually wrong about the latter point.  For example all the relevant references to sub judice in Tynwald Standing Orders are followed by "subject to the discretion of the President", which implies a motion or question can be allowed.  The fact that he never does so or even realises he can, shows just how useless and easily manipulated Skelly is[1].

But more seriously Lisvane seems to think that sub judice is used in Tynwald in the normal way it is used in other countries and indeed in theory on the Isle of Man everywhere except on Prospect Hill[2].  But it is applied not just to bodies that wouldn't be included elsewhere (such as Tribunals) but all the way through the appeals process as well.  So it's not just Lisvane's point about sub judice starting too early, it finished too late as well and it is used to cover cases it should never have applied to in the first place.

 

[1]  Robertshaw observed at the most recent Tynwald that Skelly misheard something that the AG muttered and immediately tried to shut down discussion for no reason at all.

[2]  I've noticed journalists such as Moulton believing they can't discuss stuff because Tynwald can't.  This isn't true.

Re sub judice I don't understand why Tynwald can't just temporarily suspend whatever the relevant SO is.  It's as if they don't realise that (allegedly) democratic and grown-up legislative assemblies can choose for themselves what they want to talk about within their own jurisdiction.  Or maybe the A-G hasn't told them - for some reason...

 

[Ghost Ship]

Now that's a TV interview and a half!

[Roxanne]

24 minutes ago, Moddey Dhoo said:

 

Invited by medical society to speak with doctors. 

BMA disturbed about Ranson case and the wider implications. 

Doctors describe a culture of fear and endemic bullying.

Ranson’s case, is one of many on the Island. 

People died because she was ignored.

Professional judgement was suppressed and overruled  

This could happen again  

BMA will remain involved and will contact the U.K. health minister and the Crown Dependencies Minister  

BMA will support whistleblowers 

BMA supporting local members but recognise the disconnect between practitioners, management and politicians  

 

 

 

 

 

[Roxanne]

33 minutes ago, Moddey Dhoo said:

Crikey.....

This appears to be the same video as number 2? 

Anyway - it’s bad enough with two  

 

 

 

[Two-lane]

26 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

BMA will remain involved and will contact the U.K. health minister and the Crown Dependencies Minister  

Oh, yes.

[interestedman]

SHOCK.  HORROR.  I think the UK Health Minister has enough on his plate.  And this is only a fraction of the reports !

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/racism-nhs-bullying-report-b2268284.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-65098307

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/24/bullying-sexual-harassment-nhs-hospitals

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/bullying-cases-in-scotlands-nhs-rose-almost-50-in-past-five-years-3737200