IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

7 hours ago, Kopek said:

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?

1.  Only if they are typed on one of them computer thingies.

2. The late disclosure and timelines of evidence may affect the reliance that can be placed on it or even indicate bad faith which may sway the panel.  I don't know, but I doubt either will help their case. 

[Dr. Grumpy]

35 minutes ago, Gladys said:

1.  Only if they are typed on one of them computer thingies.

2. The late disclosure and timelines of evidence may affect the reliance that can be placed on it or even indicate bad faith which may sway the panel.  I don't know, but I doubt either will help their case. 

Well, a lot will depend on how they were presented to the tribunal. If DHSC presented them as minutes taken in shorthand at the time and transcribed last week into .docx or .pdf format, that may be acceptable. Instead if they had presented them as contemporaneously typed up minutes then they are less likely to be believed...

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Well, a lot will depend on how they were presented to the tribunal. If DHSC presented them as minutes taken in shorthand at the time and transcribed last week into .docx or .pdf format, that may be acceptable. Instead if they had presented them as contemporaneously typed up minutes then they are less likely to be believed...

Yes, and as I tried to explain above, it is also relevant whether they are presented as verbatim records (possibly more reliable as it is 'just' a matter of transcription of an accurate record albeit in writing or from a recording) or a summary record of the main points discussed and agreed taken from notes (possibly less reliable if prepared a long time after the meeting due to interpretation and memory).

[Roger Mexico]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, and as I tried to explain above, it is also relevant whether they are presented as verbatim records (possibly more reliable as it is 'just' a matter of transcription of an accurate record albeit in writing or from a recording) or a summary record of the main points discussed and agreed taken from notes (possibly less reliable if prepared a long time after the meeting due to interpretation and memory).

I suspect even if the minutes had been presented as later transcripts from notes or recordings, the Tribunal have want to have access to the original notes or recordings and if from notes might want to question the person who did the belated transcribing to find out the circumstances.  The fact this wasn't mentioned in the reports might suggest they were presented as contemporaneous.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I suspect even if the minutes had been presented as later transcripts from notes or recordings, the Tribunal have want to have access to the original notes or recordings and if from notes might want to question the person who did the belated transcribing to find out the circumstances.  The fact this wasn't mentioned in the reports might suggest they were presented as contemporaneous.

Agreed, apart from your last sentence, we don't know how they were presented from the reports.  

Either way, it is not the best practice that you would expect from a process-bound organisation such as the civil service.

[Roger Mexico]

32 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Agreed, apart from your last sentence, we don't know how they were presented from the reports.  

Either way, it is not the best practice that you would expect from a process-bound organisation such as the civil service.

Well hence my 'might', though I suspect if the Tribunal had started demanding supportive evidence from the DHSC it would have been dramatic enough to be picked up the media. 

But you've highlighted the most astonishing thing here - the Civil Service is fixated on process, often at the expense of outcome.  It doesn't matter what you do, providing it's done in the 'proper' way.  The DHSC don't even seem to be able to manage that now.

[Sheldon]

I could be wrong (I often am) but I'd expect the minutes, however actually taken, to have been finalised in Word or an equivalent package very shortly afterwards for circulation. In which case, the "metadata" that is getting everyone so hot and bothered is pretty much just the creation date, last edited date, and author information which is automatically stored. Simply copying a document from one place to another during the collation of evidence wouldn't alter that metadata, but if might well change if it had been re-saved somewhere different as part of the collation process, or if a number of documents had been amalgamated together for submission to the tribunal.

I wouldn't like to send someone to the gallows based on that evidence alone.

[Andy Onchan]

28 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

I could be wrong (I often am) but I'd expect the minutes, however actually taken, to have been finalised in Word or an equivalent package very shortly afterwards for circulation. In which case, the "metadata" that is getting everyone so hot and bothered is pretty much just the creation date, last edited date, and author information which is automatically stored. Simply copying a document from one place to another during the collation of evidence wouldn't alter that metadata, but if might well change if it had been re-saved somewhere different as part of the collation process, or if a number of documents had been amalgamated together for submission to the tribunal.

I wouldn't like to send someone to the gallows based on that evidence alone.

Spoil sport!

[Ham_N_Eggs]

16 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

There are clearly sufficient doubts over their veracity to warrant referral to the police though so due process needs to run it’s course. 

They haven't been referred to the police yet:

"The panel will meet again, after it makes a decision on Dr Ranson's case, to hear evidence from the department about the authenticity of the files before deciding whether it needs to pass the matter to the Isle of Man Constabulary."

[Sheldon]

23 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

There are clearly sufficient doubts over their veracity to warrant referral to the police though so due process needs to run it’s course. 

5 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

They haven't been referred to the police yet:

At least there is reason to hope that, one way or the other, the truth will eventually come out here.

The natural tendency in a tribunal like this is to side with the poor downtrodden employee against the big bad faceless organisation. However, as the Michelle Inglis case amply demonstrated, it sometimes turns out that the employee really was just a twat 😃

 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Sheldon said:

I could be wrong (I often am) but I'd expect the minutes, however actually taken, to have been finalised in Word or an equivalent package very shortly afterwards for circulation. In which case, the "metadata" that is getting everyone so hot and bothered is pretty much just the creation date, last edited date, and author information which is automatically stored. Simply copying a document from one place to another during the collation of evidence wouldn't alter that metadata, but if might well change if it had been re-saved somewhere different as part of the collation process, or if a number of documents had been amalgamated together for submission to the tribunal.

I wouldn't like to send someone to the gallows based on that evidence alone.

Yes, that is true. But wouldn't you expect that if you are producing electronic files as evidence there are safeguards to protect the meta data?  It is obviously something that the Dr's lawyers are cognisant of or they wouldn't have looked.  In this age of everything being done electronically, there must be protocols on how electronic documents are presented in evidence for this very reason. 

Even if the document is saved elsewhere as part of the production process, presumably the original document meta data is preserved in the system in which it was first created?  We are always told that short of wiping the memory, you don’t permanently delete anything. 

[Roger Mexico]

5 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

They haven't been referred to the police yet:

"The panel will meet again, after it makes a decision on Dr Ranson's case, to hear evidence from the department about the authenticity of the files before deciding whether it needs to pass the matter to the Isle of Man Constabulary."

I think that translates from legalese as "You'd better have a really good explanation or we're calling the cops".  The way they've deferred it till after decision suggests they've already discounted the content (which may have been irrelevant anyway).

[Roger Mexico]

37 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

The natural tendency in a tribunal like this is to side with the poor downtrodden employee against the big bad faceless organisation. However, as the Michelle Inglis case amply demonstrated, it sometimes turns out that the employee really was just a twat 😃

Though that also demonstrated on recurring theme - how bad the organisation is in dealing with bullies.  Perhaps because there are so many in management that they see it as acceptable behaviour.

[Sheldon]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, that is true. But wouldn't you expect that if you are producing electronic files as evidence there are safeguards to protect the meta data? 

Word has an "Inspect Document" process which I habitually use that allows you to remove much of the metadata at the point of saving, or at any time afterwards. If you don't allow the metadata to be saved in the first place, it can't ever be used against you. Not that I'm paranoid or anything.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

Agreed but if sufficient doubt still exists after the explanation then they have said that’s what they will do. 

Do you have a link for that?