IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[The Duck of Atholl]

I think Ashford’s position is untenable. He should resign from Govt. 

[Moddey Dhoo]

11 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

The issue isn’t so much about how awful various senior DHSS  ( insert latest variant and logo  ) appointees  have been over a good few years.

Little to be gained by  reiterating something so painfully obvious.

It would be more useful to explore “ how” these appointments are made and especially by  “ whom”.

Whoever they are, they are the ones who deserve scrutiny.

They are  consistent in making disastrous choices on our behalf.

I suspect the same fingerprints are on many of these appointments (John Spicer, Angela Murray, Rosalind Ranson, Catrherine Magson, Gemserve......)

[quilp]

43 minutes ago, cissolt said:

I don't think we are too far away from people in the streets demanding change.

For a cup of tea?

That's about as far any change will go on this Island...

[Wanting Justice]

I am currently taking Manx Care to tribunal after I whistle blew, it is the same themes bullying, victimization lack of accountability, one person with a flawed view leading in decisions that effect those involved/ collusion with HR and lack of challenge from HR/ raising issues of capability but not to the individual involved and no evidence to back it up.  Suffering humiliation, professional reputation destroyed. The list goes on! 

[Mysteron]

11 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

 

It would be more useful to explore “ how” these appointments are made and especially by  “ whom”.

Whoever they are, they are the ones who deserve scrutiny.

They are  consistent in making disastrous choices on our behalf.

If recent appointments/disasters are anything to go by, they clearly seem to prioritise style over susbstance.  Those who 'talk the talk' then not being able to 'walk the walk' - who'd have thought it!   One wonders what sort, if any, due diigence is actually conducted on prospective appointments.       

[2112]

17 minutes ago, Mysteron said:

If recent appointments/disasters are anything to go by, they clearly seem to prioritise style over susbstance.  Those who 'talk the talk' then not being able to 'walk the walk' - who'd have thought it!   One wonders what sort, if any, due diigence is actually conducted on prospective appointments.       

I personally think that the standard was set when ex CM Quayle hired Charters as DHSC Head. With IOMG it seems if you have a bike or into 2 wheels, your a shoe in. Starship Enterprise are heavily running an advertisement on Facebook, via locate.im encouraging visiting bikers to relocate here. I would rather people have skills, experience and common sense along with some life experiences, over the ability to play golf, ride a cycle, ride a motorcycle or belong to the masons. 

[Mysteron]

4 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I personally think that the standard was set when ex CM Quayle hired Charters as DHSC Head. With IOMG it seems if you have a bike or into 2 wheels, your a shoe in. Starship Enterprise are heavily running an advertisement on Facebook, via locate.im encouraging visiting bikers to relocate here. I would rather people have skills, experience and common sense along with some life experiences, over the ability to play golf, ride a cycle, ride a motorcycle or belong to the masons. 

Similar tactics were employed a few years back in an attempt to attract HNWI's to the island.  Promise them the earth, and then fail to deliver.  No consideration beforehand either for some of the types it might attract.  Build it and they will come.   

[x-in-man]

How can you tell if ANY minister is making or covering  stuff up?
 

Their lips move.

[Dr. Grumpy]

2 hours ago, code99 said:

The self-serving malicious venal behaviour of the people in positions of power in the former DHSC, who were entrusted with the responsibility of managing public health, has finally been exposed. Hurrah for that! However, this sickening episode is much more than the despicable behaviour of a couple of ‘rogue’ individuals - it was the systemic chronically deficient behaviour of an appalling administration. Yesterday (all) IOM residents, who followed this story, buried their last remaining illusions that the Island had a competent accountable government, which operated professionally in accordance with the rule of law. The comparison made with how Russian politics functions must send shivers down the spine of any reasonable and decent person. 

AC will be making a statement next week. I expect him to say ‘’Lessons will be learnt, and that the culture of government must improve etc, blah blah blah…”, as if the government was a bunch of school children who needed to learn a few crucial lessons about life so that they could behave as functioning adults when entered the world of work. What I don’t expect is for him to address either the insidious failures that occurred not just with the senior administrators, but also their incompetent political masters. Surely, AC must question the competence of the then Health Minister who was, in theory, politically responsible for this entire fiasco. How is it that the same minister is allowed to be in charge of Treasury at a time when the government’s finances are under unprecedented pressures - pressure that will only increase over the next 12 months?  

I also do not expect AC to announce any specific measures, which would result in tangible improvements in either the ethos or culture of government. So, what is to be done to remedy these 'cultural deficiencies'? IMHO, a complete overhaul of every aspect of IOMG/PS/CS, and an independent investigation into the roles of HQ/DA in this sordid saga must be launched with an immediate effect. As confidence in Island’s political system and public institutions has been so dreadfully shattered by what has gone on here, I am also partial to an emergency IOM GE to be called by spring next year at the latest. This time the only candidate that will be guaranteed my vote is those who will demand nothing less than absolute transparency from the IOMG, once they are elected.  

I understand that some people will view my ‘solutions’ as another gigantic waste of time and taxpayers’ money, but without drastic reforms ‘to save ourselves from ourselves’ we might need to be managed by Westminster officials. If that dosen’t cut out the rot, then we may need to be absorbed into the UK. Sadly, I cannot see any other meaningful way forward.

How about a thorough investigation (by someone other than Sir Jon)?

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

I think Ashford’s position is untenable. He should resign from Govt. 

Personally, I doubt if he will. The moral standard has dropped so low in far too much of public service now (with examples everywhere) that, like so many before him, he'll try and ignore stuff and just blissfully carry on. Water off a duck's back, so's to speak.

[hampsterkahn]

51 minutes ago, Moddey Dhoo said:

I suspect the same fingerprints are on many of these appointments (John Spicer, Angela Murray, Rosalind Ranson, Catrherine Magson, Gemserve......)

How appointments are made and by whom  is something  I don’t know anything about at all and neither do most people, I would think.

Ussually,  we don’t need to.

However..where there are serious issues with an appointee and particularly where it is clear that there have been several appointees who turn out to be far less capable than predicted, the process itself  really does need to be closely examined.

It could be as basic as “interview bias” where interviewers consciously or unconsciously   favour candidates closest to their own personality.

This is a very serious issue .

At the very least it is a double loss.Not only might we appoint someone who at the very least turns out to be  not very useful,(or can cause all manner of mayhem,) we have also lost out by also turning away someone else who was perhaps the ideal candidate.

There is of course, an additional loss - the serious impact on recruitment of staff caused by reputational damage.

The interviewing process urgently needs scrutiny - and overhaul

 

[cissolt]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

How about a thorough investigation (by someone other than Sir Jon)?

Based on Sir Jon's contribution to this case he should never be consulted on anything.  Wasn't he previously involved with the failed NHS UK project along with a current member of Manx care?

[Dr. Grumpy]

17 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Based on Sir Jon's contribution to this case he should never be consulted on anything.  Wasn't he previously involved with the failed NHS UK project along with a current member of Manx care?

I agree.

What if he's got the COVID inquiry gig already though?

[Dr. Grumpy]

19 minutes ago, cissolt said:

 Wasn't he previously involved with the failed NHS UK project along with a current member of Manx care?

I'm awaiting Mr. Wild's response regarding this with bated breath

[ballaughbiker]

I'm not commenting on this judgement but I hear the employer has 'previous.'

I remember back in the late 80s or maybe 1990, a para-medical professional's union placed an advert in a national professional journal warning potential applicants about a post that had become vacant here due to the dismissal of the previous incumbent.

The ad encouraged potential applicants to phone this union for a briefing before applying and I was tasked with finding out what it was about.

Apparently this highly paid and very well respected professionally registered employee had been allegedly unfairly dismissed and that the offending line manager (also registered with their appropriate council) was still in post.

I understand that a significant settlement was eventually made to the dismissed employee which was kept from the public.

I know of at least one more case (remarkably for same post but different line manager this time) where a significant secret payout was made to the professional to avoid, I assume, having to go to tribunal. NB .. again this was kept from the public.