Non-Believer Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) The brief resumé of the case in the Courier today points out both the conflict in Magson's position and numerous failings in AG's Chambers. Edited February 3 by Non-Believer Typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 hour ago, Gladys said: Did she leave the island? Presume so, was on 2 yr LTA so unlikely to have bought and family's in the UK, husbands London barrister etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 I think I would have looked at the witness list, seen Ashford, Hooper etc etc and gone "settle" !!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Dalby Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 hour ago, asitis said: I think I would have looked at the witness list, seen Ashford, Hooper etc etc and gone "settle" !!! Why would Hooper be on any witness list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 4 hours ago, Mercenary said: [...] 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. 2 hours ago, Mercenary said: Presume so, was on 2 yr LTA so unlikely to have bought and family's in the UK, husbands London barrister etc Both Ranson and her family moved to the Island on her appointment and remain here. Her husband operates his practice from here (he specialises in international property so he could be based anywhere). While they were renting at the time of the tribunal, they have since bought a property on the Island. I know this, not because I have any special personal knowledge, but because I have actually looked at what the Tribunal said in its Decision on compensation issued May 2023: 12. Before her commencement with the DHSC, Dr Ranson had tried to buy a property on Island but had been unsuccessful. Instead, she and her husband moved into a rented property with an option to purchase. Almost as soon as her employment had started, the Covid pandemic spread from abroad and impacted the Island from March 2020. Events during her employment plus the demands of her role meant that by the time her contract expired in January 2022, she had not purchased a property. Since then, the option to purchase has been exercised and Dr Ranson’s family is now rooted here. 13. Her husband, a barrister, is able to run his London practice from the Isle of Man. Their daughter, having finished University, has now obtained employment on the Island. Dr Ranson explained that living where she did, beside the sea, suited her because she loved swimming and did so every day. Her family were happy with the lifestyle. Based on the available evidence, they continue to own the former family home in south-east London. Perhaps if the civil service and its supporters based their behaviour on actual information rather than gossip, the assumption that they were always right, that there would be no consequences from mistakes or even need to learn, then maybe the Island would be rather better run. 4 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said: Both Ranson and her family moved to the Island on her appointment and remain here. Her husband operates his practice from here (he specialises in international property so he could be based anywhere). While they were renting at the time of the tribunal, they have since bought a property on the Island. I know this, not because I have any special personal knowledge, but because I have actually looked at what the Tribunal said in its Decision on compensation issued May 2023: 12. Before her commencement with the DHSC, Dr Ranson had tried to buy a property on Island but had been unsuccessful. Instead, she and her husband moved into a rented property with an option to purchase. Almost as soon as her employment had started, the Covid pandemic spread from abroad and impacted the Island from March 2020. Events during her employment plus the demands of her role meant that by the time her contract expired in January 2022, she had not purchased a property. Since then, the option to purchase has been exercised and Dr Ranson’s family is now rooted here. 13. Her husband, a barrister, is able to run his London practice from the Isle of Man. Their daughter, having finished University, has now obtained employment on the Island. Dr Ranson explained that living where she did, beside the sea, suited her because she loved swimming and did so every day. Her family were happy with the lifestyle. Based on the available evidence, they continue to own the former family home in south-east London. Perhaps if the civil service and its supporters based their behaviour on actual information rather than gossip, the assumption that they were always right, that there would be no consequences from mistakes or even need to learn, then maybe the Island would be rather better run. Nitpicking, not relevant to my point that it's hard to believe she wouldn't have settled at an early stage (even if, god forbid, it required an apology) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 7 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Nitpicking, not relevant to my point that it's hard to believe she wouldn't have settled at an early stage (even if, god forbid, it required an apology) There is the perception with some that Dr. R got a huge pay off then buggered off into the sunset laughing all the wat to the bank. So, while on one level it is nitpicking, on another it is actually rather gratifying that despite the treatment she received, she likes the island and is has committed to being part of it. Although, we can't know, it does seem likely that she would have settled with an apology, but they are even harder to come by than £3m plus of taxpayers' money. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 16 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Nitpicking, not relevant to my point that it's hard to believe she wouldn't have settled at an early stage (even if, god forbid, it required an apology) Well it's interesting that pointing out that something you wrote was the exact opposite of true is regarded as "nitpicking". It illustrates the mindset I was describing rather well: no criticism, no matter how well-evidenced is acceptable. But not as well as the horror at the thought of actually having to apologise to someone so appallingly treated. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 5 hours ago, Thomas Dalby said: Why would Hooper be on any witness list? Ahh my apologies I forgot he's on the periphery ! Mind you I wouldn't want the arrogant fool on any witness list ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 How much do the government now owe the rest of us for buggering up the island and pissing away our reserves? Perhaps we should start some kind of class action 🤣 Elections don't seem to cut it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said: How much do the government now owe the rest of us for buggering up the island and pissing away our reserves? Perhaps we should start some kind of class action 🤣 Elections don't seem to cut it. Oh Albert, you ain't seen nothing yet! We haven't even started investing £1bn locally.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuffolkNGoode Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) On 2/2/2024 at 5:06 PM, 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. Jordan Peterson said something interesting a few years ago that may be relevant, to the effect that men working together can get into someone's face if a disagreement becomes a dispute. Women flatter their rival but then go about the systematic and absolute destruction of their reputation. Are you for real - take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if the difference you thought you'd make is ever likely or whether you've become another one at the trough! Edited February 4 by SuffolkNGoode 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 On 2/2/2024 at 5:06 PM, 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. Jordan Peterson said something interesting a few years ago that may be relevant, to the effect that men working together can get into someone's face if a disagreement becomes a dispute. Women flatter their rival but then go about the systematic and absolute destruction of their reputation. Absolutely. In work situations on occasion I have seen two ( or more) women being perfectly pleasant to each other, laughing and joking even, but once one has left the room the bitching begins! ( and it’s usually for reasons I don’t understand) First time I witnessed this I was totally bemused. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 3 hours ago, SuffolkNGoode said: Are you for real - take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if the difference you thought you'd make is ever likely or whether you've become another one at the trough! Another ad hominem insult. Anyway, I try not to look at myself in mirrors as all I see is an old man looking back. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said: Absolutely. In work situations on occasion I have seen two ( or more) women being perfectly pleasant to each other, laughing and joking even, but once one has left the room the bitching begins! ( and it’s usually for reasons I don’t understand) First time I witnessed this I was totally bemused. But it is bad behaviour, just as two blokes punching a disagreement out in the back lane, no one is disputing that. The issue is that it is sometimes dismissed as either women getting what they deserve from their own, or is somehow trivial as 'spat' or just wimmin being bitchy. There is little difference in the impact on the recipient whether it is a black eye or an undermining. But, do not fool yourself, men are just as capable of gaslighting, undermining and character assassination. I offer a shredded letter as evidence. 2 1 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.