DoI not fit for purpose

[0bserver]

21 minutes ago, Wake Up Call said:

DOI can afford to lose £100+ per year by not maintaining Airport car park barriers.

But the GMP cannot afford to lose £100+ per year by not maintaining Airport car park barriers.

[Andy Onchan]

18 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Very fit for purpose when it comes to squeezing car-parkers though...

 

And passing a portion of it over to their "chums".

When is that guy going to start the development that he signed up for?? He hasn't lifted one digit yet.

[Two-lane]

In a speech today -
https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/promenade-crossing-safety-check-your-highway-code-says-minister/

Crookall adopts a very superior tone, telling people to read the Highway Code and the Green Cross Code.

The Green Cross Code says: "It is safer to cross using a subway, a footbridge, an island, a zebra, pelican, toucan or puffin crossing..."

But Crookall does not inform children whether or not the markings on the promenade are defined, legal, crossings, or whether children should treat them as any other piece of road.

Crookall's allegiance is clearly with gov. employees, and he has no interest in the road safety of children.

[0bserver]

14 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Crookall adopts a very superior tone, telling people to read the Highway Code and the Green Cross Code.

Oh dear. I feel he is going the way of Baker with a holier than thou attitude. 

It will be interesting to see what the scope of the 'safety audit' is. 

[Non-Believer]

He said when first installed that it was his job to defend the Dept.

Clearly DOI have identified that promising aptitude and malleability from the off and worked their own special brand of magic to further it.

[Two-lane]

12 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

He said when first installed that it was his job to defend the Dept.

Who represents the interests of the electorate?

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, Two-lane said:

Who represents the interests of the electorate?

I think most people would agree that there is no such consideration within DOI.

It exists to serve itself, keep its upper echelons in "employment" as a means of justifying their bloated salaries and superannuation entitlement and chew through as much taxpayers money as possible in order to deliver sub-standard service and results.

And has steadily improved upon those criteria year after year since its creation.

[Two-lane]

The point of view I was trying to express is that there are 9 ministers, all of whom are unashamedly representing the interests of the government employees.

There are only 15 other MHKs of which most (maybe all) of them  are desperately trying to prove that they are also ministerial material.

So who is representing the electorate?

[As a not-really aside, I was at the public meeting after the Second Great Laxey Flood. Allinson was there, sitting with the men in suits, and doing nothing other than represent their point of view - although I admit that after a few minutes of Allinson's drivel I walked out]

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

He said when first installed that it was his job to defend the Dept.

Clearly DOI have identified that promising aptitude and malleability from the off and worked their own special brand of magic to further it.

To be fair, that is his job.  But defending the department is not the same as the individuals within it.  If an individual is found to be detrimental to the department  then that needs to be addressed and that is achieved in a number of ways, including training, performance management, job assessment, structural review,  etc.  It is not automatic sacking which could open up unfair dismissal claims putting the department at risk, let alone the impact on morale of a beleagured department that probably does have many able and dedicated staff members. 

I just hope TC understands exactly what defending his department means and that the HR department are fully involved to assist, just in case he doesn't know that there are circumstances where an alternative role must be offered, for example. 😏

[Non-Believer]

32 minutes ago, Gladys said:

To be fair, that is his job.  But defending the department is not the same as the individuals within it.  If an individual is found to be detrimental to the department  then that needs to be addressed and that is achieved in a number of ways, including training, performance management, job assessment, structural review,  etc.  It is not automatic sacking which could open up unfair dismissal claims putting the department at risk, let alone the impact on morale of a beleagured department that probably does have many able and dedicated staff members. 

I just hope TC understands exactly what defending his department means and that the HR department are fully involved to assist, just in case he doesn't know that there are circumstances where an alternative role must be offered, for example. 😏

Nick Black didn't need to be afforded these tender mercies though...? 😂

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

To be fair though he strikes me of someone who had a hand in writing what his exit looked like. 

Then, of course, we don't know what the discussions were, what the mitigations were and what the terms of the settlement were. 

ETA or even if there was a settlement beyond the required notice. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Gladys

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

But it’s fairly obvious what actually happened. Nobody leaves government before 55 unless pushed. 

That is an assumption that may or may not be accurate.  We don't know. 

[Two-lane]

I apologise for relying on the encyclopedic knowledge of ManxForum members rather than searching for the data myself - what happened to The Diesel, alias The Cabbage? Is the cost written off? Have the remnants been disposed of as scrap? Will it make yet another return?

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

I apologise for relying on the encyclopedic knowledge of ManxForum members rather than searching for the data myself - what happened to The Diesel, alias The Cabbage? Is the cost written off? Have the remnants been disposed of as scrap? Will it make yet another return?

It is being re-purposed to rid the Douglas streets of chewing gum  

[Two-lane]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

It is being re-purposed to rid the Douglas streets of chewing gum  

I have a plan. The chewing gum problem is so invasive that the best solution is to paint Strand Street masticated-chewing-gum colour. Then there is no need to remove the used gum. There is the secondary advantage that it becomes a non-slip surface.