IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Holte End]

David Ashford didn't ignore Dr Ranson.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-health-minister-didnt-ignore-dr-ranson/

You can't be accused of ignoring someone, if you refuse to speak too them.

[joebean]

Hooper’s urgent statement was obviously crafted over 2 weeks to make it sound like the DHSC acted reasonably and responsibly throughout and it was, in any event, nothing to do with him. The handling of this remains abysmal and if Hooper believes for a second that his statement gets him off the hook, he is more ridiculous, arrogant and lacking in perception than I thought… and that took some doing. 
It would have taken a few thoughtful minutes to prepare a statement that said that he and his Department noted with regret the judgement of the tribunal, would accept it in full and immediately begin the process of restoring trust and confidence in their actions. Instead we got the usual long-winded drivel containing responsibility avoidance, weak assurances and weasel words. It’s typical and utterly pathetic. 

[Thomas Dalby]

14 hours 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.

Shocking as many of the details of the judgment were, I am not sure there is a more serious accusation than that the government concocted documents. It seems an odd thing to assert but not pursue

[Roxanne]

1 minute ago, Thomas Dalby said:

Shocking as many of the details of the judgment were, I am not sure there is a more serious accusation than that the government concocted documents. It seems an odd thing to assert but not pursue

Someone you just know when you’re done. It must have been hellish going through all of that and it’s possible that she just now needs a break and to recover. Anyone could bring this up and ask for it to be investigated. Maybe she’s just done fighting battles against this administration. If so, then i can’t say I blame her. 

[rachomics]

2 hours ago, Holte End said:

David Ashford didn't ignore Dr Ranson.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-health-minister-didnt-ignore-dr-ranson/

You can't be accused of ignoring someone, if you refuse to speak too them.

That's an interesting release he's made.

I tried to speak to him in Aug 2020 and it took 3 weeks to get an appointment to see him, which I had to do as a constituent (with chasing!) in order to force the matter to whistleblow about what the hell was going on regarding a certain matter.

Turns out Magson knew I had the appointment because she gave the head of the path lab grief the week before I met with David, and David then lied to my face on the day when I asked him how confidential the meeting was, given he had clearly told Magson he was meeting with me. He told me no-one knew I was meeting with him. The rest will be going to the review.

I do find it particularly telling that whenever David is given grief on here, or via media outlets, he starts a full-on media campaign. I suspect it's do what he did with me: whenever anyone asks him about a topic he's been taking flack for, he replies on email with a list of links to articles where he praises the person or denies their claims. 

Saying something to Manx Radio doesn't make it real, David.

Edited May 17, 2023 by rachomics
formatting and an extra paragraph

[Roger Mexico]

12 minutes ago, Thomas Dalby said:

Shocking as many of the details of the judgment were, I am not sure there is a more serious accusation than that the government concocted documents. It seems an odd thing to assert but not pursue

But who should do the pursuing?  The Tribunal can't, it has neither the powers nor the remit.  Ranson would gain no extra benefit , just extra costs and, probably more important, lots of extra stress and a delay to the final settlement.  The Government commissioned their own expensive review and claim there's no evidence of anything, even though the process wasn't transparent and people like Moulton have been pointing to holes in what they claim.

[John Wright]

21 minutes ago, Thomas Dalby said:

Shocking as many of the details of the judgment were, I am not sure there is a more serious accusation than that the government concocted documents. It seems an odd thing to assert but not pursue

Perhaps she, and her team, pursued it just far enough to get home on liability, and to influence the costs order. That’s all they needed to do.

[Cassie2]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

''........The rest will be going to the review........''

But the totally inadequate and deeply flawed ''Review'' is absurdly limited to only the conduct of the actual Tribunal proceedings. It is not to be allowed to cover the events that caused Dr Ranson to take the Tribunal Proceedings - and that is in itself fatal to inquiring properly into the Dr Ranson saga. 

Also exactly who will be the staff of the independent Inquiry lawyer whoever that is to be? IOM compromised senior and other Civil Servants? And who will be the staff supporting and advising the 3 MHKs appointed to ''OVERSEE' the supposedly ''Independent'' inquiry? Those same senior and other compromised Civil Servants? if so that is the root of IOMG evil.

This Government and some of its senior and other civil servants are clearly in effect totally self-serving and wicked. I see the behavior of IOMG and those civil servants as vile and in effect corrupt. Wholly against the Public Interest. 

And unless my arithmetic has gone badly wrong, with a proper accounting for internal and external IOM legal and other related costs and 70% of Dr Ranson's legal bills I cannot see the cost to the Isle of Man public being under at least £5,000,000. If the true cost of the countless hours of Civil Servants' time and related costs are also included as they should be in any proper accounting that figure grows much more. So people should stop referring to £3,200,000 as the actual financial damage to the Isle of Man public and ponder the real true costs - to everyone.

As for your role in this, ''Professor'' Ashford, thanks for all you did - or didn't do - and for all your hyper energetic media and other efforts ever since to refuse to accept even the slightest blame for your inexplicably shocking behaviour. We can but hope that the consequences will be coming home to roost for you when the current inquiries are completed. 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Cassie2

[rachomics]

I'm talking about the COVID review, not whatever review is being set up to see if the AG did right/wrong with regards to the Ranson case.

[Roger Mexico]

It's fascinating how Ashford continues to tell the same story over the presentation, even though it has been laid out in full in the liability Decision (see para 209 onward) and shows him to be (at best) so gullible that he shouldn't be let out unattended, never mind a government Minister.  For example he says he believed the story about Ranson being 'burnt out' from Magson and Conie[1] even though he had spoken to Ranson the previous evening and not seen this.  And people don't burn out for just one day in any case.  It should have made anyone but Ashford suspicious of what they were told by these people.

As I frequently say, the purpose of Departmental CEOs in the Isle of Man doesn't seem to be to manage the Department, but to manage the Minister.  And Ashford seems happy with this and believes that no alternative should be allowed.

[1]  Who he refused to refer to by name, even though she's mentioned in the Decision where there is belatedly-disclosed communication showing Magson and Conie were working together to exclude Ranson.  Presumably he's trying to give the impression that the two reports were independent.

[Cassie2]

18 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I'm talking about the COVID review, not whatever review is being set up to see if the AG did right/wrong with regards to the Ranson case.

Thanks for clarifying. I was misled by the fact that this thread has not talked about that inquiry for a long time and has been focused on the potential and now actual ''Review'' relating to the conduct / handling of the Dr. Ranson Tribunal.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Cassie2

[rachomics]

30 minutes ago, Cassie2 said:

Thanks for clarifying. I was misled by the fact that this thread has not talked about that inquiry for a long time and has been focused on the potential and now actual ''Review'' relating to the conduct / handling of the Dr. Ranson Tribunal.

 

No worries. It was the article on David Ashford trying to say that he listened to Dr. Ranson that prompted my reply

[offshoremanxman]

37 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

For example he says he believed the story about Ranson being 'burnt out' from Magson and Conie[1] even though he had spoken to Ranson the previous evening and not seen this.  And people don't burn out for just one day in any case.  It should have made anyone but Ashford suspicious of what they were told by these people.

It’s a classic IOM Government bullying tactic that anyway. Don’t speak to that officer as they’re mental, or they’re having a break down. Ignore anything they say as everyone know’s they’re a crackpot. It’s exactly how these sort of sad public sector bullies operate and discredit any threats and if they say it enough times then people start to believe it. Even Ministers. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by offshoremanxman

[Two-lane]

 

 

[cissolt]

2 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s a classic IOM Government bullying tactic that anyway. Don’t speak to that officer as they’re mental, or they’re having a break down. Ignore anything they say as everyone know’s they’re a crackpot. It’s exactly how these sort of sad public sector bullies operate and discredit any threats and if they say it enough times then people start to believe it. Even Ministers. 

I can't find the actual transcript from Ashfords pac evidence, but the general jist was he questioned her mental health on the day she was due to give a presentation to comin. This contradicted the policy of laziness from magson and public health to just follow whatever public health england states.

https://gef.im/2022/05/12/health-minister-refused-to-speak-directly-to-medical-director/

Allowing Ranson to be sidelined and claim it was mental health related is grounds enough to have him removed from government in my opinion.