IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[english zloty]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Late production of minutes does not necessarily mean they were fabricated, not good practice, but not necessarily fabricated.  The real question is whether they are a true record of a meeting that took place. 

I think they were edited the day before being provided. However from a meeting weeks before. And couldn't explain why

[Bandits]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Late production of minutes does not necessarily mean they were fabricated, not good practice, but not necessarily fabricated.

If you had them presumably you’d submit them as evidence on time? 

[Roger Mexico]

56 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Why would they need to ship a judge in?  Nothing was said about criminal charges, but is evidence at a Tribunal given under oath? 

I'm pretty sure presenting documents that were known to be forged or incorrect to a tribunal is a criminal act, even if nobody has sworn an oath to say they are true.  If a document can be shown to have been created much later than it was claimed to be (as was alleged at the tribunal) then by definition it would be a forgery - even if its contents were correct.

An external judge, QC or whatever would be needed to assess whether criminal actions had taken place and if an investigation and prosecution was justified.  Normally this would be the function of the AG's Office , but as they were the people presenting one side of the case, they clearly can't do so impatially here.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, english zloty said:

I think they were edited the day before being provided. However from a meeting weeks before. And couldn't explain why

I am not defending anyone, just pointing out that it isn't straightforward (think I posted above about the difference between verbatim records and summaries).  The fact of amendment would show in the metadata, I think, but it would be quite a forensic exercise to establish the veracity of the documents.

If documents were changed in anticipation of submission, then there has to be a very large question mark over their reliability. 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm pretty sure presenting documents that were known to be forged or incorrect to a tribunal is a criminal act, even if nobody has sworn an oath to say they are true.  If a document can be shown to have been created much later than it was claimed to be (as was alleged at the tribunal) then by definition it would be a forgery - even if its contents were correct.

An external judge, QC or whatever would be needed to assess whether criminal actions had taken place and if an investigation and prosecution was justified.  Normally this would be the function of the AG's Office , but as they were the people presenting one side of the case, they clearly can't do so impatially here.

Minutes are, by their nature, produced after the event.  The issue how long after, how accurate and at what point did they become accepted by all attendees as an accurate record. 

[Dr. Grumpy]

14 hours ago, snowman said:

Is Paul Implying that he knows the outcome?

[cissolt]

46 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Is Paul Implying that he knows the outcome?

That does seem to be the suggestion.  Interesting as he seems very cosy with government since the covid briefings.

 

[Bandits]

14 minutes ago, cissolt said:

That does seem to be the suggestion.  Interesting as he seems very cosy with government since the covid briefings.

 

Well they have a new head of Cabinet Office in there now so they can blame all this crap on those who won’t be around much longer. 

[Gladys]

12 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

An external judge, QC or whatever would be needed to assess whether criminal actions had taken place and if an investigation and prosecution was justified.  Normally this would be the function of the AG's Office , but as they were the people presenting one side of the case, they clearly can't do so impatially here.

Isn’t the judiciary independent of the AG's office, so why would an external  judge need to be brought in because the  AG's office presented one side of the case? 

I can see it if it needs someone with particular technical skills, eg an understanding of documentary forensics,  although you would think weighing the veracity of evidence is part of the job anyway. I can't see it as necessary on the grounds of impartiality. 

The way it was presented by PM sounded more like a judicial review, with the AG arguing the strength of their client's evidence rather than an investigation as such. 

I could be wrong, but we only have PM's tweets to go by. 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Isn’t the judiciary independent of the AG's office, so why would an external  judge need to be brought in because the  AG's office presented one side of the case? 

I can see it if it needs someone with particular technical skills, eg an understanding of documentary forensics,  although you would think weighing the veracity of evidence is part of the job anyway. I can't see it as necessary on the grounds of impartiality. 

The way it was presented by PM sounded more like a judicial review, with the AG arguing the strength of their client's evidence rather than an investigation as such. 

I could be wrong, but we only have PM's tweets to go by. 

I haven’t gone looking it up, but my understanding is that for contempt of court, providing, let’s say, fabricated, evidence, there’d be a criminal offence of acts against public justice, or contempt.

I’ve never had to consider contempt, but it’s possible, probable, that contempt of a tribunal, has to be dealt with by a Deemster ( judge ). I don’t think I, as a tribunal chair, have power to punish for contempt, by fine or worse, although I can summons witnesses and the production of documents.

Does that make sense? In UK it’s codified. In IoM it’s breast or common law.

[cheesypeas]

Manx Radio

 

NEWS: BMA claims former medical director has won employment tribunal

Dr Rosalind Ranson describes tribunal's decision as a 'victory for the principle of whistleblowing'

[TheTeapot]

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-supports-chief-medical-director-in-successful-whistle-blowing-case

[rachomics]

15 minutes ago, cheesypeas said:

Manx Radio

 

NEWS: BMA claims former medical director has won employment tribunal

Dr Rosalind Ranson describes tribunal's decision as a 'victory for the principle of whistleblowing'

It is indeed a victory for the principle of whistleblowing. Many of us were treated appallingly for speaking up about troubling aspects of the Island's COVID19 response. I'm fairly sure all of us are still suffering the consequences. 

[Bandits]

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-supports-chief-medical-director-in-successful-whistle-blowing-case

Now we know why Magson left before the bomb was dropped.

[2112]

I wonder if Ashie comes out of this unscathed? Can the DHSC appeal?

I dread to think how much this has cost the taxpayers?