IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not in the opinions of someone who declares that all MHK’s are “twats” .

It doesn’t make for intelligent discussion.

So no, not interested. Sorry Glad

I understand that. 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

I understand that. 

Yes it seems we are at cross purposes. 

I am indeed interested in the subject matter just not in the contribution from that poster.

Bit of a misunderstanding 

Friends?

[Gladys]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes it seems we are at cross purposes. 

I am indeed interested in the subject matter just not in the contribution from that poster.

Bit of a misunderstanding 

Friends?

Of course! I would like to see more reasoned argument than vitupery (sp). 

[Roger Mexico]

17 minutes ago, Thomas Dalby said:

Paragraphs 373 and 374 of the Tribunal remedy judgment make clear that it expected Dr Ranson to challenge the Expol findings in evidence, given she alleged there were concoted documents, but she didn’t. “There remains nothing to stop Dr Ranson referring the matter to the Constabulary herself”

I rather get the impression that she and her legal team just wanted everything over with as it had clearly been extremely distressing for her and more hearings would have made her mental state even worse.  They may also have come to the conclusion that even if the documents were found to be concocted, it wouldn't make a lot of difference to the financial outcome (and would cost a lot extra to do in any case).  

All the documentary shenanigans wouldn't have any effect on the actual award anyway.  What they did do was to made the Tribunal order 70% of Ranson's costs for the Liability Hearing to be paid by the DHSC (or rather Treasury), though in practice it's the BMA that would be getting the benefit.  I doubt the percentage would have been increased by further wrongdoings from DHSC - normally both sides pay their own costs in employment tribunals and the Tribunal effectively ruled that Ranson would have had to pay out the amount of the 30% even if the other side had behaved impeccably.

I get the impression that the Tribunal would have liked to find out more, both around the Expol stuff and the non-disclosure and 'weeding' of documents.  But it's not their job (as the Deemster pointed out in one of the appeals) and they don't have the powers to investigate.

[Stu Peters]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

Do you think you’re going to find a replacement DOI department member out of the pool of available talent now he’s gone? 

Yes, no problem, although it’s up to the Minister, not me.

[Ghost Ship]

36 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I rather get the impression that she and her legal team just wanted everything over with as it had clearly been extremely distressing for her and more hearings would have made her mental state even worse.  They may also have come to the conclusion that even if the documents were found to be concocted, it wouldn't make a lot of difference to the financial outcome (and would cost a lot extra to do in any case).  

All the documentary shenanigans wouldn't have any effect on the actual award anyway.  What they did do was to made the Tribunal order 70% of Ranson's costs for the Liability Hearing to be paid by the DHSC (or rather Treasury), though in practice it's the BMA that would be getting the benefit.  I doubt the percentage would have been increased by further wrongdoings from DHSC - normally both sides pay their own costs in employment tribunals and the Tribunal effectively ruled that Ranson would have had to pay out the amount of the 30% even if the other side had behaved impeccably.

I get the impression that the Tribunal would have liked to find out more, both around the Expol stuff and the non-disclosure and 'weeding' of documents.  But it's not their job (as the Deemster pointed out in one of the appeals) and they don't have the powers to investigate.

Anybody in any doubt as to what the Tribunal thought of the DHSC's conduct leading up to and during the original hearing need only read paras 348 - 347 of the decision dated 9th May 2022.

For example:

"COSTS – The Liability Proceedings

348. Making an award of costs in this Tribunal is far from the norm. Whereas regularly in the High Court, “costs follow the event” meaning that the loser is likely to be ordered to pay the costs of the winner, very rarely does a winner in this Tribunal get any contribution towards the costs of the proceedings. The power is available but is used most sparingly. In effect, when an order for costs is made, it is because of gross misconduct. [My bold for emphasis]

349. The Tribunal can make an award of up to £2,000 under Rule 40 (10) (a). However, a detailed assessment can be ordered under Rule 40 (10)(b) and Mr Segal has applied for this. That assessment can be made in the High Court or can be made by the Chairman of this Tribunal following the same principles as would be adopted in the High Court.

350. In accordance with Rule 40 of the Employment & Equality Tribunal Rules 2018, Mr Segal set out a summary of the law and the factual basis on which Dr Ranson had made an application for costs up to the conclusion of the Liability Decision of 9th May 2022. Costs can be awarded when a party has, in defending the proceedings, acted: 

Vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. Alternatively the discretion can be exercised when a party has made a false or exaggerated allegation.

351. The Tribunal considered that the proceedings were conducted unreasonably and involved a false allegation (and indeed more than one)."

And that's just in respect of the liability proceedings.  It doesn't cover the conduct of the appeals!

 

And regarding the Expol investigation into the three(?) documents that had had doubts cast upon them, it seems unusual that there was more than one example of minutes etc being dated wrongly by accident...

[And thanks for providing the FoI link pointing to the ExPol report]

Edited May 16, 2023 by Ghost Ship

[Ghost Ship]

Difficult for me to tell from afar but am I picking up a vibe that Rob Callister might be scapegoated in respect of the decisions to appeal because he was (very briefly) the responsible minister?  

I know nothing about the guy except he seems very unpopular on this forum and is apparently perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  But seems a bit much that he should get the blame - if that's what is happening.

(Have to say I felt a bit sorry for him over the bullying incident where I thought - after reading the report - that he seemed hung out to dry.  I thought it was going to be a bit odd after I read that an expletive directed at him by a colleague apparently did not breach Tynwald's standards of conduct.  I don't quite understand why but perhaps it was because the colleague had explained that it was "... characteristic of [their] sense of humour and served to lighten the mood of the meeting."  Not sure if an excuse like that would have worked in my old employment: "Oh, it was just a bit of light-hearted banter.  I didn't mean anything by it."

Also odd that in a legislature not divided along party lines and where everybody is effectively an independent the report was only passed on a split vote 15 to 8. )

Edited May 16, 2023 by Ghost Ship

[slinkydevil]

2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes it seems we are at cross purposes. 

I am indeed interested in the subject matter just not in the contribution from that poster.

Bit of a misunderstanding 

Friends?

Thank you, appreciated. Love you.

[WTF]

10 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The pool of available talent remains the same regardless of whether Glover goes or stays.

here's that pool now    

[Weliveinhope]

I understand both arguments on the Tim Glover speech, but I feel had he remained in department, he would have had to keep his mouth shut and we probably wouldnt have known if he had managed to effect any change, or rather he wouldnt have been able to given it would probably have been one man vs the machine. However, by making his decision and speaking up (as with Christian etc) in the way that he did, I think this puts so much focus on the state of things that they simply cannot ignore this. For the first time ever, i do feel that we will finally see some decisive action, and those in power will be brought to book once and for all. I think this has riled the public like nothing else before, and as long as we have the likes of Moulton and Robertshaw asking the right questions we may end up with a civil service that serves to the benefit of the Island rather than for themselves. I would urge everyone to write to their MHK and the Chief Minister demanding change. 

[buncha wankas]

8 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

Difficult for me to tell from afar but am I picking up a vibe that Rob Callister might be scapegoated in respect of the decisions to appeal because he was (very briefly) the responsible minister?  

I know nothing about the guy except he seems very unpopular on this forum and is apparently perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  But seems a bit much that he should get the blame - if that's what is happening.

(Have to say I felt a bit sorry for him over the bullying incident where I thought - after reading the report - that he seemed hung out to dry.  I thought it was going to be a bit odd after I read that an expletive directed at him by a colleague apparently did not breach Tynwald's standards of conduct.  I don't quite understand why but perhaps it was because the colleague had explained that it was "... characteristic of [their] sense of humour and served to lighten the mood of the meeting."  Not sure if an excuse like that would have worked in my old employment: "Oh, it was just a bit of light-hearted banter.  I didn't mean anything by it."

Also odd that in a legislature not divided along party lines and where everybody is effectively an independent the report was only passed on a split vote 15 to 8. )

Hooper came across as a complete idiot in Tynwald yesterday, trying to make out his actions actually saved the tax payer money, the fact that he believes that is beyond pathetic. 

[2112]

25 minutes ago, buncha wankas said:

Hooper came across as a complete idiot in Tynwald yesterday, trying to make out his actions actually saved the tax payer money, the fact that he believes that is beyond pathetic. 

He was a complete idiot before yesterday. He was a complete idiot the day before …….

[Dirty Buggane]

And will be the day after tomorrow ad infinite.

[Roger Mexico]

9 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

Difficult for me to tell from afar but am I picking up a vibe that Rob Callister might be scapegoated in respect of the decisions to appeal because he was (very briefly) the responsible minister?  

I know nothing about the guy except he seems very unpopular on this forum and is apparently perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  But seems a bit much that he should get the blame - if that's what is happening.

(Have to say I felt a bit sorry for him over the bullying incident where I thought - after reading the report - that he seemed hung out to dry.  I thought it was going to be a bit odd after I read that an expletive directed at him by a colleague apparently did not breach Tynwald's standards of conduct.  I don't quite understand why but perhaps it was because the colleague had explained that it was "... characteristic of [their] sense of humour and served to lighten the mood of the meeting."  Not sure if an excuse like that would have worked in my old employment: "Oh, it was just a bit of light-hearted banter.  I didn't mean anything by it."

Also odd that in a legislature not divided along party lines and where everybody is effectively an independent the report was only passed on a split vote 15 to 8. )

Callister had to be scapegoated by the Report, because otherwise it would be clear that Cannan had acted incorrectly in sacking him and there would have to be apologies (at least) the other way.  As usual with the Isle of Man and outside consultants, it would have been clear what result was expected for our money.  Similarly Haywood had to be let off lightly. 

In a functioning organisation the clash between Callister and the DMs (which seems in part to have been caused by him being expected to defend a decision he didn't make) would have been sorted out with a few quiet words from Cannan, but as we saw yesterday, Cannan is quick to react angrily to anything he sees as a challenge to his authority and is more interested in defending that than making things work.  It's classic weak leadership.

Obviously it's then foolish to try to pin the blame on Callister for the appeal because there's too much public evidence that he had little to do with it.  That's doesn't seem to be stopping them, though, presumably the main motivation is spite.

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

Hooper came across as a complete idiot in Tynwald yesterday, trying to make out his actions actually saved the tax payer money, the fact that he believes that is beyond pathetic. 

I don't know if he does believe it or not; but he (and others) will be expecting a gullible electorate to believe it, it's how they are in office and why things are as they are.

The best way to counter it is to repeat, "£3.2M+ of taxpayer's money paid for incompetence and corruption, what have you got to say and are doing about it?" to every elected member that you encounter as many times as you can before you go hoarse.