IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, finlo said:

You're forgetting who runs the police and the courts!

It remains to be seen what happens. 

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It remains to be seen what happens. 

Nothing to see here move along blah blah.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The proceedings started 26th Jan and the link says that additional documents were still being submitted throughout the proceedings. 

Yes, but she is not a party, she is a witness.  It is the DHSC that is the party. 

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, finlo said:

Nothing to see here move along blah blah.

Not at all, but let's not ignore what has to happen. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

So, James Boyd reminded the panel that the case was not about the government's handling of the pandemic but about the decision not to move Dr R to Manx Care.

From what has been covered in the press, no one is really looking at the handling of the pandemic, but the handling of a senior professional in the DHSC. 

What an odd thing to say, or be picked up as significant by the reporter.

But Boyd is the Defence counsel for the DHSC, so saying this isn't about [X] may just be the equivalent of say "Don't look behind the green curtain".  The DHSC's defence is that Ranson was not transferred to Manx Care and then sacked because she wasn't good at the job and since that job included dealing with the pandemic, then the topic is bound to come up.  If Magson and the DHSC's definition of 'good at the job' consists of 'does whatever they are told without question and nothing else', then the Tribunal may be unimpressed.

[747-400]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I have to say, in defence, that the minutes could have been prepared based on contemporaneous handwritten notes just that they hadn't been typed up.

The problem with that is that the handwritten notes will inevitably be in the author's shorthand and may not carry the nuance of the actual meeting. So, are they reliable?

Not best practice by any stretch, but not quite the same as falsifying a document.  

Perhaps what happened was the clerk of the meeting took notes but didn't type them up. If that was the case, you would either produce the handwritten notes, heavily caveated that they were exactly what they were and not seen or confirmed by the attendees, or you say there are no approved minutes of the meeting.

 

Thanks, that’s certainly a feasible possibility. 

But, does the CS still have clerks to do minutes and why were they never written up. 

In any case, the clerk could confirm that her shorthand had been correctly transcribed (presumambly only she or another clerk could type them up?)

 

[747-400]

55 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Don't believe the Manx Radio take on my evidence session.

My witness statement and evidence was in three parts: 1. The science that I carried out during my time at the DHSC which proves one of Dr. Ranson's whistleblowing claims; 2. The occasions I met Dr. Ranson during my time at the DHSC, and 3. My experience of the DHSC. 

For some reason, Manx Radio concentrated only on the first 2 minutes of my 60 minute evidence session regarding a tweet put forward by the DHSC as "proof" that I should be personally discredited in order to discredit my science.

I wonder why the DHSC would want me to be discredited given the science is empirical and has no opinion, just data 🤔

I think MR did mention some examples of your experience with DHSC (but I am sure you had plenty more!)

There sure are some powerful, unnamed individuals at the DHSC.

If it weren’t so serious it would make a good TV series. 

[747-400]

33 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The proceedings started 26th Jan and the link says that additional documents were still being submitted throughout the proceedings. 

I wonder if the delay was because the docs are now with Manx Care?

I remember at the PAC hearings DA talking about bundles of documents still to be supplied as they now sit with Manx Care.

[0bserver]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Well, if there is a proper criminal investigation and it is found that a document has been falsified, it will be the subject of a criminal trial.  If the person responsible is found guilty, doesn't a criminal record jeopardise your employment?

The issue will be whether it is referred for investigation and that it is investigated.

Plenty of time for them to scarper on a gold-plated CS pension. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, 747-400 said:

Thanks, that’s certainly a feasible possibility. 

But, does the CS still have clerks to do minutes and why were they never written up. 

In any case, the clerk could confirm that her shorthand had been correctly transcribed (presumambly only she or another clerk could type them up?)

 

By clerk, I mean whoever was given the job of taking the minutes.  So, it could have been anyone there if there wasn't a formally appointed clerk or secretary.   By shorthand, I don't mean Pittman, but the abbreviations and shortcuts idiosyncratic to the note taker. 

Also, not all minutes are a verbatim record, they may just be a summary of the discussion and the decisions reached.  That is why it is important to prepare them from your notes as soon as you can, so that you interpret the shorthand you have used to give an accurate record which you then circulate to those attending to confirm.    

To that extent, verbatim minutes are dead easy, just record who said what.  You might as well just record the meeting and prepare a transcript, vis Hansard.  Voice recognition software can do most of the donkey work now.  It isn't so critical if they are prepared quickly because it is more a transcribing process than a drafting process. 

So, it is plausible, even if not good practice for the conversation to go:

"Have you got the minutes of that meeting they need them for the Tribunal?"

""Bugger no, I have my notes, I'll type them up now for you to check and approve"

That isn't great practice but it isn't  falsifying documents providing it is clear when they were produced.  Also, to do that in anticipation of providing them in evidence in some form of proceedings is questionable as you can't be sure of the accuracy so far on and you have to wonder if there would be a bit of "artistic licence" applied given the audience

On the other hand, if they are a verbatim record, then it is a straightforward record of who said what, so it matters not when they are actually typed up. Again, not great practice, but not as unreliable as the other type of minutes. 

 

 

[Sheldon]

In the vast majority of cases, minutes of these sort of meetings should be typed up and approved by the Chair, and ideally circulated to all attendees for review before being formally accepted. Otherwise they are almost literally not worth the paper they may or may not be written on.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

In the vast majority of cases, minutes of these sort of meetings should be typed up and approved by the Chair, and ideally circulated to all attendees for review before being formally accepted. Otherwise they are almost literally not worth the paper they may or may not be written on.

Certainly true for company board and other formal meeting minutes, but not always for all meetings.  Sometimes you have a meeting and make your notes but if it is with an external party, you wouldn't necessarily send them the typed up notes , just keep them on file.

[Andy Onchan]

20 minutes ago, Gladys said:

By clerk, I mean whoever was given the job of taking the minutes.  So, it could have been anyone there if there wasn't a formally appointed clerk or secretary.   By shorthand, I don't mean Pittman, but the abbreviations and shortcuts idiosyncratic to the note taker. 

Also, not all minutes are a verbatim record, they may just be a summary of the discussion and the decisions reached.  That is why it is important to prepare them from your notes as soon as you can, so that you interpret the shorthand you have used to give an accurate record which you then circulate to those attending to confirm.    

To that extent, verbatim minutes are dead easy, just record who said what.  You might as well just record the meeting and prepare a transcript, vis Hansard.  Voice recognition software can do most of the donkey work now.  It isn't so critical if they are prepared quickly because it is more a transcribing process than a drafting process. 

So, it is plausible, even if not good practice for the conversation to go:

"Have you got the minutes of that meeting they need them for the Tribunal?"

""Bugger no, I have my notes, I'll type them up now for you to check and approve"

That isn't great practice but it isn't  falsifying documents providing it is clear when they were produced.  Also, to do that in anticipation of providing them in evidence in some form of proceedings is questionable as you can't be sure of the accuracy so far on and you have to wonder if there would be a bit of "artistic licence" applied given the audience

On the other hand, if they are a verbatim record, then it is a straightforward record of who said what, so it matters not when they are actually typed up. Again, not great practice, but not as unreliable as the other type of minutes. 

 

 

Minutes... according to Sir Humphrey: 

 

[buncha wankas]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

I thought Magson had already departed.

Which one of her followers from DHSC will get her job and were they complicit with the mental bully girls brigade 

[Kopek]

Written notes subsequently typed up wouldn't have an electronic timeline, would they?

However, the late disclosure and timelines would not necessarily determine the outcome of the Tribunal, unless, they are thought to be untrue?