IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, cissolt said:

Some very interesting comments from Chris roberthshaw and Ralph peake.  Any ideas which tribunal Mr Peake is referring to?  Sounds dreadful

Have you got a link please? 

[Augustus]

3 hours ago, cissolt said:

 

Robertshaw's sound is off-synch. Too far from a microphone? Annoying.

 

[TheTeapot]

Re-animated corpse, its hard to get those things right.

[Roger Mexico]

35 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Nevertheless, there are bits and pieces around (although I assume people who are interested have already found them):

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=49635&headline=Tribunal+hears+accusations+of+bullying+in+health+department&sectionIs=News&searchyear=2019

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=56552&headline=Deemster rejects DHSC's appeal&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2020

Of course those highlight the other tactic they have with these cases - drag everything out for so long that the victim gives up or dies.  As your first link illustrates, the Tinwell case had been going on since Autumn 2014, but was only resolved last Summer.  If by resolved we mean the DHSC abandoned its case and threw vast amounts of public money at everyone to shut them up.  Presumably an actual tribunal would have meant not just accusations but documents and witnesses supporting them.

Of course the same tactic of delay is also used with patients as well as staff here's a recent claim that finally made it to judgment in December (2021).  The original incident was in April 2012.

[Barlow]

Chris Robertshaw has relocated his moral compass now he has left Tynwald. Good.
 

Quote

Youtube 10:50

Chris Robertshaw: It raises the question, to what extent, how far would Government go to protect its reputation and in so doing damage other people's lives and careers because frankly in my humble opinion that is what is going on.

Oh Chris knows how far government will go. He was, after all, sitting at the top table and was one of Howard's Government golden boys under the borrow a brain scheme.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Barlow

[Two-lane]

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

There won't be judgment published because there wasn't a judgment

This is a link referring to UK employment tribunals. Just go straight to the conclusion.

Some IoM politicians are always saying that the IoM should be a leader, setting an example to the world. I doubt that many MHKs would be pushing for the law to be changed here in this respect. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

https://www.girlings.com/latest/how-public-are-employment-tribunals

[Gladys]

So, Magson didn't recognise the IOM had jurisdiction and wouldn't submit to it.  It sounds like she was seconded to the IOM by the NHS Trust, so who had direction and control over her?

Never, ever have a senior member of the CS either on secondment without full control and accountability or working from outside of the IOM.

That is all shocking stuff particularly the Abbotswood angle, which answers why James Boyd tried to draw a veil over the handling of Covid.

There are three people I can think of who should be put under oath to explain their actions, not to mention the others in the shadows.  Not sure how you would do that, but there should be a full accounting and people held responsible. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Gladys

[asitis]

Whilst I listen open mouthed to this, I am not really surprised ! The behaviour of Government when questioned, even in the house amongst its own backbenchers, illustrates perfectly the sense of misplaced power and lack of accountability across the board. It goes a long way to explain the free rein given to a collection of powerful, but totally incompetent individuals, who waste taxpayers money with impunity. This is what happens when you raise the corner of the carpet and look under it at the sweepings, and why they are so keen for the carpet not to be raised. I did hope Alf was going to grasp the opportunity to do something about how many people view government, but so far have not seen any signs or desire to do so. I have old Manx friends who tell tales of how things were and TBH not much has changed in many years. It is time to let the sun shine in !

[cissolt]

I know that people think that an independent enquiry is a waste of money, but the govt is guilty of negligence and potential illegality.  Don't we deserve to know who was responsible for these failures?  We can allow Alf and gang to sweep it all under the carpet. 

[Non-Believer]

Ms Magson didn't question the IoM's jurisdiction about being paid by it, presumably?

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, cissolt said:

I know that people think that an independent enquiry is a waste of money, but the govt is guilty of negligence and potential illegality.  Don't we deserve to know who was responsible for these failures?  We can allow Alf and gang to sweep it all under the carpet. 

I wasn't in favour of a wide-ranging inquiry into Covid - costly and we know attention will be focused on the cupboards without skeletons.

But this really deserves an inquiry, a weighty one, under oath with penalty of perjury by people expert in getting to the truth, ie not a committe of MHKs/MLCs.

The inquiry should not only cover the Abbotswood aspect, but the Steam Packet fiasco, that letter and have a brief to identify the cultural failings that have allowed this and who is responsible for allowing that culture and who was perpetrating it. 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Ms Magson didn't question the IoM's jurisdiction about being paid by it, presumably?

Well, that is the interesting thing because listening to it, the gist I got from CR was that she was still being paid by her NHS employer and we were reimbursing them.  There was a lack of clarity about whether there was a direct relationship, direction or control between the DHSC and her. 

If my inference is correct, then you wonder whether DHSC would have a right of action against her employer if the Tribunal find in Dr R's favour, or if that has been contracted away. 

It's more murky and unclear than even we, on this much maligned forum, could have envisaged in our most wild and fanciful imaginations. 

 

[finlo]

Childcare? She doesn't look a day under sixty!

[Two-lane]

9 minutes ago, finlo said:

Childcare? She doesn't look a day under sixty!

She left university in 1994. If she was 20 years old at the time, she would now be 48.

This is Facebook isn't it?

 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Barlow said:

Oh Chris knows how far government will go. He was, after all, sitting at the top table and was one of Howard's Government golden boys under the borrow a brain scheme.

Whatever you say about Robertshaw he wasn't one of the Quayle's favourites, wasn't in his CoMin and didn't even take up a Departmental Membership - which meant he missed out on the 30% upgrade.  He did criticise a bit, though it was often a bit scattergun and laid back and he could have been more effective.  But he certainly wasn't a Government cheerleader over the last five years.