Another one bites the dust

[asitis]

40 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except of course that's the sort of solution we've tried time and time again for the DHSC for example.  And it hasn't really worked has it?  You just get someone who's very good at performing and rhetoric and blathering on about leadership and vision and sees themselves above such minor trivialities as fixing stuff.  It's basically how DoI has operated as well and all that whole areas of the Cabinet Office do.  Maybe it's the time for boring accountants who like to make things work.

Mirror of the airport !

[Ghost Ship]

5 hours ago, cissolt said:

Good points joebean. If government have concluded that the documents were forged and then 'allowed' those involved to retire rather than face legal action, they open a whole new can of worms.

If the Tribunal carries out its threatened investigation into (1) the possible non-disclosure of some documents and (2) the authenticity/provenance of other documents that were disclosed, and that investigation concludes that some individuals ought to be subject to legal action as a result of their conduct, then I don't see how their having already resigned offers them any legal protection - except not being subject to disciplinary action by their employer.

3 hours ago, code99 said:

The AG's Chambers provides the advice to the IOMG on 'legal matters'...

I'm a bit surprised the AG's department hasn't come in for more criticism regarding the non-disclosure and/or possible fabrication of some documents and minutes of meetings etc

I may be wrong, but if they're responsible for providing legal advice to the IoM govt, wouldn't they have had a significant part to play in ensuring that the DHSC and its employees fully complied with their disclosure responsibilities?  Otherwise what is their purpose in advising the govt?

I can understand that it would have been difficult to ensure that Mrs Magson had disclosed all relevant documents (neither she nor her day-books were readily accessible to the AG's dept) but how could they have missed that Dr Ewart had not fully complied with disclosure?  She - rather stupidly I thought - actually had to refer during her testimony to the infamous text message exchange between Dr Ranson and herself, which she must surely have realised would only demonstrate that she had not previously disclosed the exchange to the Tribunal!

Would the AG's dept have had no responsibility - from the point of view of protecting the IoM govt - to check Dr Ewart's phone etc to ensure everything relevant that should have been disclosed had been?

 

(NB - I have wondered whether Dr Ranson should have disclosed the text exchange herself?  I assume either that she was under no obligation to disclose it or she had already deleted it from her 'phone and couldn't recover it)

[Non-Believer]

4 hours ago, 2112 said:

You can clearly see the animosity IOMG have for social media, and I could see them introducing legislation if they thought they could. 

"Ill-informed Internet forums should be shut down"...

[joebean]

46 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except of course that's the sort of solution we've tried time and time again for the DHSC for example.  And it hasn't really worked has it?  You just get someone who's very good at performing and rhetoric and blathering on about leadership and vision and sees themselves above such minor trivialities as fixing stuff.  It's basically how DoI has operated as well and all that whole areas of the Cabinet Office do.  Maybe it's the time for boring accountants who like to make things work.

Greenhow was a boring accountant and that didn’t work out too well either. It’s really about having a proven record of achieving things, rather than the ability to carry around buckets of bullshit. That’s where we keep going wrong. 

[SleepyJoe]

Are they being given the right goals to achieve? 

[cissolt]

28 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

If the Tribunal carries out its threatened investigation into (1) the possible non-disclosure of some documents and (2) the authenticity/provenance of other documents that were disclosed, and that investigation concludes that some individuals ought to be subject to legal action as a result of their conduct, then I don't see how their having already resigned offers them any legal protection - except not being subject to disciplinary action by their employer.

I'm a bit surprised the AG's department hasn't come in for more criticism regarding the non-disclosure and/or possible fabrication of some documents and minutes of meetings etc

I may be wrong, but if they're responsible for providing legal advice to the IoM govt, wouldn't they have had a significant part to play in ensuring that the DHSC and its employees fully complied with their disclosure responsibilities?  Otherwise what is their purpose in advising the govt?

I can understand that it would have been difficult to ensure that Mrs Magson had disclosed all relevant documents (neither she nor her day-books were readily accessible to the AG's dept) but how could they have missed that Dr Ewart had not fully complied with disclosure?  She - rather stupidly I thought - actually had to refer during her testimony to the infamous text message exchange between Dr Ranson and herself, which she must surely have realised would only demonstrate that she had not previously disclosed the exchange to the Tribunal!

Would the AG's dept have had no responsibility - from the point of view of protecting the IoM govt - to check Dr Ewart's phone etc to ensure everything relevant that should have been disclosed had been?

 

(NB - I have wondered whether Dr Ranson should have disclosed the text exchange herself?  I assume either that she was under no obligation to disclose it or she had already deleted it from her 'phone and couldn't recover it)

Ranson couldn't disclose anything as they wiped her phone, seems an unusual policy to wipe a doctor's phone and not have a backup.

 

[Ghost Ship]

35 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Ranson couldn't disclose anything as they wiped her phone, seems an unusual policy to wipe a doctor's phone and not have a backup.

 

Ah.  Thank you - I'd missed that telling paragraph in the decision.

Makes it look even worse then for the employer (if that were possible) that the DHSC and its employees appeared not to disclose everything to the Tribunal from the outset.  Again, I would have expected the AG's dept to ensure that the IoM govt's case was beyond reproach by ensuring that the simple things - like disclosure - were complied with.

If you can't get the simple procedural and evidential things right, it must only damage your case.

[Bandits]

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

Ranson couldn't disclose anything as they wiped her phone, seems an unusual policy to wipe a doctor's phone and not have a backup.

 

Phone wiping is standard practice in the commercial space. In fact it’s often the first thing that gives people the giveaway that they’re getting binned. Their phone just stops working. 

[Roger Mexico]

8 minutes ago, Bandits said:

Phone wiping is standard practice in the commercial space. In fact it’s often the first thing that gives people the giveaway that they’re getting binned. Their phone just stops working. 

Except the Government claimed they didn't - it was all an accident caused by GTS, which the Tribunal accepted.  Obviously if they now discover an e-mail saying "Kill the bitch's phone"  they're going to be in even more trouble.

[quilp]

Oh the blessed gifts to come! 😇😬

[Bandits]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except the Government claimed they didn't - it was all an accident caused by GTS, which the Tribunal accepted.  Obviously if they now discover an e-mail saying "Kill the bitch's phone"  they're going to be in even more trouble.

It will be no accident. Seen it done loads of times. 

[Declan]

22 minutes ago, Bandits said:

Phone wiping is standard practice in the commercial space. In fact it’s often the first thing that gives people the giveaway that they’re getting binned. Their phone just stops working. 

But surely they keep a copy on their servers?

[Bandits]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

But surely they keep a copy on their servers?

Not sure they usually wipe the actual devise so if there are back ups or cloud copies then yes they’d have them. But if they do back up to cloud or server that would perhaps raise very sensitive issues for all MHKs especially who use government issued devices. For instance say a whistleblower calls or texts their MHK about a certain situation to arrange a meeting and that information is freely available to GTS on some sort of cloud account to access? You’d be a bit worried about the power some unelected people would hold wouldn’t you and potential misuse of private data?

Personally if I was a whistle blower I would never reach out to anyone who I knew had any government device. I’d do it via letter or VPN protected anon email account or spend £5 on a burner SIM etc. I wouldn’t trust any of the infrastructure and who else had access to anything because the whole system is institutionally corrupt. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Bandits

[Two-lane]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except the Government claimed they didn't - it was all an accident caused by GTS,

The document does not say it was an accident:

"Dr Ranson’s phone had ceased to operate and the entire
phone memory had been wiped following advice given by GTS, part of Government Services."

The wording of the advice given by GTS is not in the document, nor is there any explanation of why, and on whose instructions or what prompted  GTS to issue that piece of advice, nor who wiped the phone.

[cissolt]

In isolation the phone wiping may seem to be an accident, but in case where evidence has been concocted or not presented at all it's rather suspicious.

GTS would not act unless asked, so there will be a record of how and why the phone was wiped.  Whether anyone asks to see it is another matter.