display name Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 20 minutes ago, doc.fixit said: Neither do I. In fact I don't understand sport at all. But do you understand fluffy kittens and basic spelling? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 On 2/1/2024 at 6:04 PM, Sheldon said: Well, fuck me sideways! I imagine your “ fuck me sideways” quote is because you think these conclusions of KC Wright with all the time and resources available to him, together with his legal expertise, are somehow wrong. Yes it’s not a 100% vindication of the department. But the report unequivocally states that “the decision to defend the claim was …….legally justifiable and was an appropriate decision “ As opposed to all the bar room lawyers on this forum who decried the decision. Not forgetting the conclusion that “there is no evidence that any documents were submitted to the Tribunal that were modified, false or misleading “ There is no plaudits for the department for taking the appropriate decision ( yes the outcome was not what it would have wanted) just the suggestion for example that because the report came out giving some credit to the Government, naysayers claim that it was a “Wrightwash” I really wish this forum was a bit more balanced. Rather than the default position just being to criticise the Government. Yes of course it deserves criticism on particular policies and actions. But a blanket “ the Government is shit” doesn’t really lend itself to intelligent discussion 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: I imagine your “ fuck me sideways” quote is because you think these conclusions of KC Wright with all the time and resources available to him, together with his legal expertise, are somehow wrong. Yes it’s not a 100% vindication of the department. But the report unequivocally states that “the decision to defend the claim was …….legally justifiable and was an appropriate decision “ As opposed to all the bar room lawyers on this forum who decried the decision. Not forgetting the conclusion that “there is no evidence that any documents were submitted to the Tribunal that were modified, false or misleading “ There is no plaudits for the department for taking the appropriate decision ( yes the outcome was not what it would have wanted) just the suggestion for example that because the report came out giving some credit to the Government, naysayers claim that it was a “Wrightwash” I really wish this forum was a bit more balanced. Rather than the default position just being to criticise the Government. Yes of course it deserves criticism on particular policies and actions. But a blanket “ the Government is shit” doesn’t really lend itself to intelligent discussion Care to post some things that aren't shit? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 hours ago, Stu Peters said: I've only scanned most of it, but saw from some of his findings that in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. Well, I may be wrong (and @Sentience can correct me if I am) - but I suspect Sentience was referring to the manner in which the DHSC Senior Team dealt with Dr Ranson, rather than the way the lawyers chose to express themselves at the tribunal. “Nasty, vindictive, disingenuous and cruel”…yep, sounds about right. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Dalby Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 47 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: IAs opposed to all the bar room lawyers on this forum who decried the decision. Not just on this forum, don’t forget Chris Robertshaw KC, in-house legal bore at the Bellend Arms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 2 hours ago, Gladys said: But, Rachomics, this is what happens when women are allowed to fill their heads with learning and fancy ideas. Things are so complicated these days. It was a lot easier when the government here could just chuck them down a well and see if they floated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 hours ago, Stu Peters said: in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. To say that Ranson's lawyer was on the offensive is to state the obvious - he was being paid to defend his client by attacking the view being put forward by the gov. To include the word "highly" significantly changes the meaning of the word offensive to mean rude, unpleasant or objectionable. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said: I imagine your “ fuck me sideways” quote is because you think these conclusions of KC Wright with all the time and resources available to him, together with his legal expertise, are somehow wrong. It was more an expression of my (lack of) surprise at those conclusions than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 37 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: Things are so complicated these days. It was a lot easier when the government here could just chuck them down a well and see if they floated. Or roll them down a hill in a barrel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, finlo said: Care to post some things that aren't shit? It's lovely between Ashford's buttocks? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I offered to take Ashford out for a stake dinner...but not had a reply yet. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 In reference to the conclusion above, what on earth does " In Good Faith" mean in this context ? Does it mean they were quite correct in their actions and behaviours, and had a position to defend worth defending, given the implications for the taxpayer ? or some other vague meaning given the context and outcome ? I can believe my own hubris and righteousness, despite perhaps awful behaviour, and still act seemingly "In good faith", in respect of my position. Seems a very vague and subjective term for a KC to describe a raft of behaviours of an organisation ! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 11 hours ago, display name said: Or the gold standard Fluffy kittens on the other hand..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: Yes it’s not a 100% vindication of the department. But the report unequivocally states that “the decision to defend the claim was …….legally justifiable and was an appropriate decision “ As opposed to all the bar room lawyers on this forum who decried the decision. Not forgetting the conclusion that “there is no evidence that any documents were submitted to the Tribunal that were modified, false or misleading “ There is no plaudits for the department for taking the appropriate decision ( yes the outcome was not what it would have wanted) just the suggestion for example that because the report came out giving some credit to the Government, naysayers claim that it was a “Wrightwash” Defending the claim was 'appropriate' and bringing the appeals were in 'good faith'. But litigation wise it's a very poor outcome and poor use of taxpayer funds with significant reputational harm. No big organisation takes cases the whole way when there's a real risk of being defeated (and they would have knew the significant risk around Magson's conduct and credibility), the potential exposure is huge. Look at the backlash from medical industry and the national press running it. I find it hard to believe Ranson would not have settled at an early stage for some multiplier of her salary - her case was not watertight (as Wright notes) and she had left the Island anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Did she leave the island? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.