IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Barlow]

You're right of course Roger - apologies. It is the previous 5 years he snuggled in and made himself a government mouthpiece, and left his moral compass to freefall.

 

3 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

 I suppose he’s free to say what he likes now he isn’t in Keys. 

Yes, and I hope he continues to feel free to do so. I see that it would be difficult for him to do, when on the inside.

 

[rachomics]

On 2/4/2022 at 11:05 PM, Gladys said:

Actually the word was vindicative, according to MR.

We have seen the fallout, but not what led to it.  I have to say, though, RG has not covered herself in glory with the various Tweet shenanigans.  Much better to keep the moral high ground, IMO.  

Tweet shenanigans? Like the hack coordinated by @fookadoodledo and friends? To clarify, yes, it was discussed with the police. If only they'd made a payment with my ApplePay card or used any of the icloud data they accessed. At least then they could be prosecuted for financial fraud or data breaches. Alas, trolling alone for the sole purpose of discrediting a person isn't a criminal prosecution. I live in hope of their mistakes enabling one.

[rachomics]

2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

You’re absolutely deluded. 

No, I'm really not. 

[Gladys]

We saw during the 2020 daily briefings  a little glimpse of "the culture".  Paul Moulton asked searching questions from early on, and the responses became increasingly tetchy.  It was obvious that he was viewed as asking impertinent and unwelcome questions, instead of the usual superficial and unchallenging  questions asked by the rest of the press.  How very dare he question what was being done, who the fuck did he think he was? 

Watching those briefings on FB, the comments reflected that; 'Oh, oh, here comes Paul', 'Can't they just shut him up', 'Who does he think he is?', 'Why is he doubting what they are saying?'. Most usually that was from the same people who had unerring belief in the trio. Others did pick up the way he was being responded to. 

There must have come a point when the Holy Triumvirate realised, or were told, they were coming across as tetchy and dismissive and to modify their tone, resulting in the infamous 'lovely smile' comment. 

If that is how a journalist is treated at public briefings, imagine how reasoned opposition is dealt with in private? That was just a little glimpse of the prevailing culture maybe? 

[rachomics]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

We saw during the 2020 daily briefings  a little glimpse of "the culture".  Paul Moulton asked searching questions from early on, and the responses became increasingly tetchy.  It was obvious that he was viewed as asking impertinent and unwelcome questions, instead of the usual superficial and unchallenging  questions asked by the rest of the press.  How very dare he question what was being done, who the fuck did he think he was? 

Watching those briefings on FB, the comments reflected that; 'Oh, oh, here comes Paul', 'Can't they just shut him up', 'Who does he think he is?', 'Why is he doubting what they are saying?'. Most usually that was from the same people who had unerring belief in the trio. Others did pick up the way he was being responded to. 

There must have come a point when the Holy Triumvirate realised, or were told, they were coming across as tetchy and dismissive and to modify their tone, resulting in the infamous 'lovely smile' comment. 

If that is how a journalist is treated at public briefings, imagine how reasoned opposition is dealt with in private? That was just a little glimpse of the prevailing culture maybe? 

You only have to have listened to any of the Dr. Ranson tribunal sessions (as opposed to the soundbites and clickbait distilled on Manx Radio) to know that the prevailing culture is one of of extreme protection of the DHSC individuals and MHKs involved. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by rachomics

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

Tweet shenanigans? Like the hack coordinated by @fookadoodledo and friends? To clarify, yes, it was discussed with the police. If only they'd made a payment with my ApplePay card or used any of the icloud data they accessed. At least then they could be prosecuted for financial fraud or data breaches. Alas, trolling alone for the sole purpose of discrediting a person isn't a criminal prosecution. I live in hope of their mistakes enabling one.

The shenanigans I referred to was playing out the whole argument on Twitter, not just the unfortunate Tweet about IOMG covering up a cause of death, regardless of whether it was a result of a hack is not.  

The problem is playing these things out in public didn't really do you any favours in the public perception and provided your detractors with way too much ammunition.  It would have been wiser to keep your own counsel and the moral high ground for when you could deploy a well-aimed bombshell, on target and with little collateral damage.  

Edited February 13, 2022 by Gladys

[The Voice of Reason]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

We saw during the 2020 daily briefings  a little glimpse of "the culture".  Paul Moulton asked searching questions from early on, and the responses became increasingly tetchy.  It was obvious that he was viewed as asking impertinent and unwelcome questions, instead of the usual superficial and unchallenging  questions asked by the rest of the press.  How very dare he question what was being done, who the fuck did he think he was? 

Watching those briefings on FB, the comments reflected that; 'Oh, oh, here comes Paul', 'Can't they just shut him up', 'Who does he think he is?', 'Why is he doubting what they are saying?'. Most usually that was from the same people who had unerring belief in the trio. Others did pick up the way he was being responded to. 

There must have come a point when the Holy Triumvirate realised, or were told, they were coming across as tetchy and dismissive and to modify their tone, resulting in the infamous 'lovely smile' comment. 

If that is how a journalist is treated at public briefings, imagine how reasoned opposition is dealt with in private? That was just a little glimpse of the prevailing culture maybe? 

Moulton was very irritating at that time. Particularly at asking questions which had already been answered.

However he seems to have learnt from that ( a process of education if you like) and now comes across as quite a bit more learned.

Without wishing to sound glib maybe the covid thing has contributed to his professional development 

[rachomics]

I'd have to be 10 years older and have prior experience of the Isle of Man Government in order to do that. I was stung by believing that on the most part people are nice and don't play the kind of games I've seen them play in my interactions with the DHSC. My COVID experience has been one of learning not to trust anyone. Which is contrary to my 15 years in the UK civil service where these kind of childish games didn't get played. 

[buncha wankas]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The shenanigans I referred to was playing out the whole argument on Twitter, not just the unfortunate Tweet about IOMG covering up a cause of death, regardless of whether it was a result of a hack is not.  

The problem is playing these things out in public didn't really do you any favours in the public perception and provided your detractors with way too much ammunition.  It would have been wiser to keep your own counsell and the moral high ground for when you could deploy a well-aimed bombshell, on target and with little collateral damage.  

Seriously, you are lecturing Glover, when you should listen to your own advice 

It would be best if you stick to the DHSC Ranson case rather than derail it with personal snipes at Glover. 
 

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Moulton was very irritating at that time. Particularly at asking questions which had already been answered.

However he seems to have learnt from that ( a process of education if you like) and now comes across as quite a bit more learned.

Without wishing to sound glib maybe the covid thing has contributed to his professional development 

All the journos were good at asking questions that had just been answered!

On the other hand often PM would come in with a question which seemed to have been answered but was actually drilling a little deeper.  The Steam Packet issue was one and I think he pushed on about Dr Glover.  It was easy to dismiss him as asking silly questions.

@buncha wankas I have been a supporter  from day one.  I thought the way she was treated and spoken about in the press briefings was reprehensible. My comments are not personal snipes and were pretty measured compared to some on the same topic.  It is entirely up to her if she reads my posts, let alone takes the advice.  This is a discussion forum and the Dr G matter is entirely relevant to the Dr R matter.  But thank you for your comments. 

[asitis]

It has always been very easy to identify the questions they didn't want asking, by the disdain and /or venom in their reply. Either in the time of Teare, and his terse commercially confidential replies, when being asked the whereabouts of 30 million of public money, to the subjects of this thread where Paul Moulton became persona non grata at the briefings as he was prepared to drill a bit deeper than the tame journos and sycophants.

I've always thought, without any serious opposition, an administration doesn't have to try too hard, only with good press and good opposition do they have to up their game !

[Roger Mexico]

What I found interesting about he discussion was just how edgy Moulton was about certain topics being discussed.  And as said by others, he's usually one of the more probing of our media hacks.  Clearly there are frequent legal warning being given (probably informally).  But as Robertshaw said Tribunal proceedings are fairly open and, as with appeal courts, there's no automatic restriction on reporting and comment because there  no jury who might be influenced by coverage.

We go on about the poisonous culture of the DHSS, but most of this wouldn't be possible without the implicit backing of the police and prosecuting authorities and of the Cabinet Office.  A culture of impunity needs to have the people who can award that impunity involved.  And while most of us knew and have discussed the dreadful behaviour of these areas of government over Abbotswood, it was good to hear it discussed openly.

[Augustus]

2 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

You only have to look at the tribunal schedule. About half the upcoming cases seem to be about government departments. In fact they seem to keep the courts going.

https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/tribunals-service/schedule-of-tribunal-hearings/

Kennington = another one hung out to dry for speaking the truth.

[Gladys]

27 minutes ago, Augustus said:

Kennington = another one hung out to dry for speaking the truth.

Wonder how whistleblowing sits with these matters? 

[Sheldon]

55 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Wonder how whistleblowing sits with these matters? 

Tribunal awards are normally capped - unless there is a proven whistle blowing element. Needless to say, most claimants now try to crowbar in whistle blowing to their case, somehow, anyhow.