IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Yes, you are.

No I’m not. I’m just raising it for discussion. Be interested to hear people’s views.

Like you do in a discussion forum.😀

[The Duck of Atholl]

On 8/6/2023 at 7:57 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

Re this chap across who was wrongfully imprisoned for 17 years for a rape he didn’t commit. It appears, under English law he is entitled to a maximum of £1 M compensation.

Compare and contrast this with Ranson and the tribulations she has suffered resulting in an award of £3.2 million.

I am not saying one has been under compensated or another one over compensated but it does make you think.

You aren't comparing like with like they are under different sets of legislation. Why not check out employment tribunal payouts in the UK for a better comparison

[2112]

As reported on the NPM and other Manx media, RR has settled her second tribunal claim against the DHSC. She has received more wholesome apologies and a donation of £5,000 has been made to Hospice - from the DHSC. Again not the DHSCs finest hour, it should never have got far. The issue of legal costs for the first tribunal hasn’t been settled yet. 

[The Voice of Reason]

33 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

You aren't comparing like with like they are under different sets of legislation. Why not check out employment tribunal payouts in the UK for a better comparison

You are missing the point.

I was seeking opinions as to how people felt about someone wrongly imprisoned for rape for 17 years, getting a maximum of £1 million and an employment tribunal awarding £3.2 million for an employment issue.

I know that’s not like for like but they are both forms of compensation.

Never mind. Forget I said anything.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

She actually issued the last update back on 29 July, so 3FM are as speedy as ever with the news[1].  If you remember she had issued a warning on 20 July (scroll down for that) that Departments shouldn't use her Inquiry as an excuse to refuse FoIs or send Cease and Desist letters to stop people making statements or giving evidence.  This happened the day after the DHSC got Callin Wild to send a Cease and Desist letter threatening Moulton who had been complaining about unanswered FoIs.  But I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

Eight days later Poole-Wilson on behalf of IOMG got round to replying.  You get the impression that as usual most of them had been hoping the whole thing would go away and the wording suggests signs of negotiation:

It is important to note that there is a difference between full engagement and openness with the Review, and potentially defamatory comments published elsewhere, and I appreciate the need for clarification to ensure all those who wish to engage with the Review understand that they may do so in a full and frank way.

To that end I note your request that it is made clear that where a part of Government issues a “cease and desist” letter or similar correspondence, it is not the intention to seek to restrict the recipient’s or any individual’s full and frank cooperation with the Review. I have thus directed that this is made clear to any recipient(s) of such correspondence and that the message is also conveyed to Government Departments.

And significantly the latter is copied to Randall.  But there's a bit of an air of "Sorry (not sorry)" about the whole thing.

Brunner's reply the next day makes clear that she's not going to be messed with, that she still is holding open the option of a public enquiry and that submissions to her are and will be kept confidential.  In particular one section again comes back to Moulton's enquiries:

Evidence in relation to March 2020

The Review has been asked repeatedly about whether it has gathered certain pieces of evidence relating to decision-making around border controls. Generally, information about what material the Review has gathered, and who the Review has spoken to is not shared until publication of the report. I can, however, provide reassurance that the Review has gathered a great deal of material about what happened in March 2020 when decisions were being taken about border controls, including Government emails, contemporaneous notes, meeting minutes and witness evidence. That early decision-making is being robustly investigated in the course of the Review, along with many other aspects of Government’s response to the pandemic.

 

[1]  The above news item says it's her latest "monthly update" but if you look at the updates it's not just the second July one, but there wasn't one before since March.  So it's possible that that they're even reporting the 20 July one - or more likely someone sent them a 'silent' press release (ie one that doesn't appear on the government website)

[Banker]

Court case with Ranson settled.

https://gef.im/news/politics/dr-ranson-settles-case-with-dhsc-38547/?fbclid=IwAR0ev6INRWcjRRhvumYpagR8GyxmiNCOH0J11f_3cJxtKUtUKrs3nqxCjsM

[Roger Mexico]

7 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You are missing the point.

I was seeking opinions as to how people felt about someone wrongly imprisoned for rape for 17 years, getting a maximum of £1 million and an employment tribunal awarding £3.2 million for an employment issue.

I know that’s not like for like but they are both forms of compensation.

Never mind. Forget I said anything.

I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it did come across a bit like you thought Ranson had got too much if this guy only got £1 million.  But both cases were actually affected by legally set maximums and Ranson could only get as much as she did because there is no limit for whistleblowing.  If she had been dismissed unfairly for other reasons it would have been much less and certain parts were still restricted.  For example she only got £5000 (the maximum) for 'hurt feelings'  because no matter what the psychological damage your employers cause that's what the law says.

What the two cases do share is an unwillingness by those in charge to admit they were ever wrong.

[Roger Mexico]

48 minutes ago, 2112 said:

As reported on the NPM and other Manx media, RR has settled her second tribunal claim against the DHSC. She has received more wholesome apologies and a donation of £5,000 has been made to Hospice - from the DHSC. Again not the DHSCs finest hour, it should never have got far. The issue of legal costs for the first tribunal hasn’t been settled yet. 

We knew this already of course, because Robertshaw told us about it in the first part of this Moulton interview:

I suspect that triggered the publication of the decision on Judgments.  Robertshaw also mentioned that the DHSC were still disputing paying Ranson's costs, as ordered.  Specifically the part payments due to her husband (a barrister) before the BMA took over.  The last Tribunal made it quite clear that this should be paid, but the DHSC are still quibbling - as far as I can see out of spite and pettiness.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it did come across a bit like you thought Ranson had got too much if this guy only got £1 million.  

Well I have had that opinion expressed to me and to be honest it’s hard to argue against it. But like you say the two cases were in two operating environments if you will. Not comparing like for like as has been pointed out. 

However imagine if you were able to strip all the nuances out it does seem, prima facie, that one of these parties has fared ratherbetter than the other in relation to the harm they have suffered.

It’s a bit like the Facebook loonies who start petitions saying that nurses should be paid as much as footballers. Ignoring the fact that nurses salaries have to be paid from the public purse and footballers salaries are determined by market forces amongst other factors which make demands for such pay equality a nonsense.

Anyway it was silly of me to have raised the topic for discussion.
 

[Moghrey Mie]

Meeting today. 10-noon

Notice released yesterday.

https://www.gov.im/news/2023/aug/08/mcals-and-patient-transfers-host-further-drop-in-session-in-the-west/

[Two-lane]

55 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Meeting today. 10-noon

Notice released yesterday.

They never miss an opportunity to let us know how good they are at planning.

[ADELE]

From what I can see Manx Care is just another level of bureaucracy and saves the Health Minister making any decisions he can be called out on.    Another expensive mistake.

[Banker]

15 hours ago, Two-lane said:

They never miss an opportunity to let us know how good they are at planning.

To be fair the patient transfers team is one of most helpful & efficient teams in government speaking from personal experience & other family members 

[2112]

50 minutes ago, Banker said:

To be fair the patient transfers team is one of most helpful & efficient teams in government speaking from personal experience & other family members 

I’ve had experience of this service and echo your sentiments. What I think it’s down to is sympathetic and empathetic staff, who are able to relate to others, unlike the usual breed of civil servants. They are also quick and efficient. 

[ADELE]

I don’t know if Wilf has jumped the gun but he announced on Mannin Line that it was announced at a meeting last night that a new residential home would be built before Cummal Moar was pulled down.    Unfortunately I did not hear the full details just dashed into the kitchen when he shouted I have good news…and if this happens it is good news.   If anyone heard the full story it would be great.    Bonzo came on then and I had to turn the radio off, worse than Gawne deffo.