Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Lrk said:

no, your team is: goods inwards, metrology, assembly, QA, press shop, mould shop, stores, despatch.

How did you not know who should have been present?

Because the head engineer had been at previous meetings?

[Lrk]

Just now, Gladys said:

Because the head engineer had been at previous meetings?

Apologies it was an unfair test. You would have had to have been a manufacturing insider to answer the question credibly.

The head engineer is jointly and partially responsible for mould shop and press shop, but each shop has its independent chief. Lines 1, 2 and 3 are part of the assembly function and are not represented individually but rather by an assembly red coat. I also missed the planning department, research and development, sales and lifecycle testing in my example.

My point is this. Politicians probably won't recognise the complexity of their department, and maybe - to their detriment - they will look for a single narrative rather than penetrating the complications of the many subdivisions under their control.

Is a minister responsible for understanding that complexity or should there be a reasonable expectation that his highly paid CEOs aren't vendetta-driven individuals who are prepared to suppress medical data to meet their personal satisfaction at the cost of defective policy decisions that cost lives?

 

[Gladys]

The question was facile, and pointless because there was no information given on the structure.  (You also missed out personnel, finance and governance.)

Whereas the structure of the DHSC was known and the most senior clinician was sidelined leaving a non-medically qualified person to represent the health service side of the DHSC in a highly medical emergency situation. It doesn't take hindsight to find that curious. It does, however, require curiosity to wonder why she was excluded from direct input. 

No matter how you spin it, on a spectrum of "remiss" to "complicit",  it was a failure. 

ETA: The Minister is absolutely responsible for understanding his department and the key people within it. The minister is also responsible for critically questioning the information provided to them.  Surely that is part of their role? 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Gladys

[Lrk]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The question was facile, and pointless because there was no information given on the structure.  (You also missed out personnel, finance and governance.)

Whereas the structure of the DHSC was known and the most senior clinician was sidelined leaving a non-medically qualified person to represent the health service side of the DHSC in a highly medical emergency situation. It doesn't take hindsight to find that curious. It does, however, require curiosity to wonder why she was excluded from direct input. 

No matter how you spin it, on a spectrum of "remiss" to "complicit",  it was a failure. 

ETA: The Minister is absolutely responsible for understanding his department and the key people within it. The minister is also responsible for critically questioning the information provided to them.  Surely that is part of their role? 

I'll accept that. So your implication is that Ashford knew the structure and deliberately excluded the Medical Director, and her clinical input.

Why would he do that? 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Lrk said:

I'll accept that. So your implication is that Ashford knew the structure and deliberately excluded the Medical Director, and her clinical input.

Why would he do that? 

That is not my implication.  As I said, there is a spectrum from remiss to complicit. Quite where it sits is a matter for further investigation.  Whether that investigation will ever happen is another reason for malcontent. 

However, what I would say is that, as a minimum, he seems not to have questioned why Dr R was no longer providing direct input. Either that, or he did question and was satisfied with the answer which must have been a very persuasive answer given that she was DHSC's most senior doctor present at the coalface and not sitting at a laptop in the UK.  

[Lrk]

Let's see what comes out in the wash then. 🙂

 

[Ghost Ship]

2 hours ago, Lrk said:

I imagine you are correct. Would you happen to have an example of where he tripped himself up?

I'm not sure what @Roger Mexico means exactly by "he managed to trip himself up often enough" but there are certainly parts of the tribunal decision that aren't particularly complimentary about some of the minister's actions.

For example, if you look at the section about the Serious Incident Report (para 445 et seq) the tribunal appears to be somewhat critical of the minister's public mis-attribution of blame for the delay in producing the report to Dr Ranson rather than to Mrs Magson:

"458.  It was noteworthy to the Tribunal that the Minister considered that “realistic indications” needed to be given. The unrealistic indications had been down to Miss Magson. She had raised the Minister’s expectation - not Dr Ranson. Yet somehow, as his written evidence confirmed, the Minister then considered that he had not been misled by Miss Magson and that the delays had been down to Dr Ranson.  [My bold]

459.  The Tribunal asked itself on what basis the Minister could blame Dr Ranson publicly on 9th October when she had never given any timescale? On his own evidence, the Minister knew that it was Miss Magson who had raised his expectation about informing those affected about the outcome.  [My bold]  Dr Ranson’s coherent and explanatory email at pages 2506 – 2507 made clear that the SI process informs the decision as to communications with those affected."

I've neither seen nor heard the evidence relied on by the tribunal in making these comments, but they certainly seem to be suggesting - in this instance at least - that perhaps the minister had not dealt fairly with Dr Ranson.

It's not clear to me that these actions can simply be explained away by saying that the minister didn't understand how the department worked or how it was structured?  (If that is what you are suggesting).

 

[Ghost Ship]

1 hour ago, Lrk said:

I'll accept that. So your implication is that Ashford knew the structure and deliberately excluded the Medical Director, and her clinical input.

Why would he do that? 

I don't know why he would do that, but if you are suggesting that he could not have done it because he would have had no good reason to do so, doesn't the Tribunal decision tend to contradict that point of view?

For example, talking about the alleged protected disclosure to minister Allinson that she (Dr Ranson) was concerned that Mrs Magson had failed to pass crucial medical information on to CoMin:

"276.  The Tribunal was satisfied that Miss Magson would have been displeased had Dr Ranson gone direct to Minister Ashford on the March (or any) issues. Equally the Tribunal was satisfied that Minister Ashford did not want or expect to hear directly from Dr Ranson (or from anyone other than through the command structure).  [My bold]

277.  Dr Allinson took the opportunity to speak to the Minister after a CoMin meeting. His evidence was that Minister Ashford made clear that he would not hear from Dr Ranson direct. He would only hear from Miss Magson, coming through the command structure.  [My bold.] Minister Ashford, in his evidence to the Tribunal, did not deny that there could have been a brief discussion like this but he had no recollection of it. He said that he would not challenge whatever Minister Allinson had said of the discussion. Significantly though, he added that he would not have divulged a Minister-to-Minister discussion to Miss Magson."

That seems quite conclusive to me that the Tribunal considered on the evidence before it that the minister understood the structure and did not want to hear directly from Dr Ranson.  He had an opportunity to challenge the evidence from minister Allinson, but chose not to do so.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Ghost Ship

[cissolt]

Lrk I have tabbed you and can see you are a government stooge.  My guess is Boxer?

Determining the mental health status of a medical director, who presented to comin the day before, and preventing her from attending meetings because she doesn't agree with an administrative CEOs opinion?

Seems like not only was he married to an incorrect graph, but also a policy of least effort possible.

[cissolt]

Let's not forget the point his point rebuttal which has been proved nonsense at the tribunal:

https://gef.im/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/httpswww.tynwald.org_.imbusinessppReports2021-PP-0171.pdfpage63.pdf

 

 

[Wavey Davey]

Great attempt at thread derailment.

Back to more evidence of Ashy’s delusions:

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/i-wont-resign-david-ashford-says-547912

He is clearly not going to resign until he is made to resign. Over to you Alf. Nobody is going to let this go away. 

[Bandits]

2 hours ago, cissolt said:

Lrk I have tabbed you and can see you are a government stooge.  My guess is Boxer?

Determining the mental health status of a medical director, who presented to comin the day before, and preventing her from attending meetings because she doesn't agree with an administrative CEOs opinion?

Seems like not only was he married to an incorrect graph, but also a policy of least effort possible.

Yes that was fairly despicable. Typical government bullying though. Spread rumours that people are mental and shouldn’t be listened to. 

[jackwhite]

56 minutes ago, Bandits said:

Yes that was fairly despicable. Typical government bullying though. Spread rumours that people are mental and shouldn’t be listened to. 

Do we really have to use terms like 'mental'? 

[Ghost Ship]

I think it depends on the context.

I've heard the Director of Nursing of a NHS mental health trust describe somebody as "completely mental".

(I don't think Bandits was using it derogatorily in the post you quote.  I think he was trying to illustrate the questionable behaviour of senior DHSC management)

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Wavey Davey said:

Great attempt at thread derailment.

Back to more evidence of Ashy’s delusions:

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/i-wont-resign-david-ashford-says-547912

He is clearly not going to resign until he is made to resign. Over to you Alf. Nobody is going to let this go away. 

Ashford voluntarily resigning is the only way that AC is going to retain any credibility too, IMHO.

If Alf doesn't sack him then Alf is going to be seen as weak and in collusion. It's not going to go away and it's not going to be forgotten.