Moghrey Mie Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 'He informed me that after conducting an official visit as Minister he had returned to his home address to work. Mr Callister told me that unfortunately he had a poor mobile telephone signal at his home.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 21 minutes ago, Gladys said: 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. And that this conduct was also being funded by the taxpayer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Gladys said: 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. Yes Gladys I’m in complete agreement with your first two paragraphs. But as for your third I don’t think that counts as evidence. If the writer of the letter requested anonymity what better way of protecting that anonymity by shredding said letter? Edited February 4 by The Voice of Reason Amended third paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 32 minutes ago, Gladys said: 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. Says you. I'll bet it was you who put my ketchup back in the wrong cupboard again and don't try and blame it on the Chinese au pair with the black eye,she's on holiday. We'll be having words young lady 😉 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 18 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Yes Gladys I’m in complete agreement with your first two paragraphs. But as for your third I don’t think that counts as evidence. If the writer of the letter requested anonymity what better way of protecting that anonymity by shredding said letter? Without being pedantic, there is a difference between an anonymous letter and one where the writer has asked that their identity be confidential. In the first, you don't know who wrote it, so shouldn't really put much store in it. In the second, you may take a different tack, particularly if you use it so you can validate the claims. Talking hypothetically, of course. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gladys said: Without being pedantic, there is a difference between an anonymous letter and one where the writer has asked that their identity be confidential. In the first, you don't know who wrote it, so shouldn't really put much store in it. In the second, you may take a different tack, particularly if you use it so you can validate the claims. Talking hypothetically, of course. Well it was my understanding that the first doesn’t apply, the letter writer gave their name but asked not to be identified. It was made clear that this was their wish. So yes there is a case of this was all made up because it can’t be proven as the letter writer asked for anonymity . You can choose to believe the MHK who allegedly received said letter or not, or that he made the whole thing up. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I choose to believe the MHK, which apparently places me between his buttocks in the lovely land of MF. Edited February 4 by The Voice of Reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Well it was my understanding that the first doesn’t apply, the letter writer gave their name but asked not to be identified. It was made clear that this was their wish. So yes there is a case of this was all made up because it can’t be proven as the letter writer asked for anonymity . You can choose to believe the MHK who allegedly received said letter or not, or that he made the whole thing up. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I choose to believe the MHK, which apparently places me between his buttocks Up to the nuts! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 7 minutes ago, finlo said: Up to the nuts! Up to the ears, actually. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Up to the ears, actually. Jeepers, pass the eye bleach! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 41 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Well it was my understanding that the first doesn’t apply, the letter writer gave their name but asked not to be identified. It was made clear that this was their wish. So yes there is a case of this was all made up because it can’t be proven as the letter writer asked for anonymity . You can choose to believe the MHK who allegedly received said letter or not, or that he made the whole thing up. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I choose to believe the MHK, which apparently places me between his buttocks in the lovely land of MF. If you cast your mind back, he told many lies during Covid. Dr Glover wasn't employed by the department, her code was not copied, he's searched his mailbox and has found only one email relating to Dr Ranson. Id rather not trust someone who not only lies, but who was said to be an unreliable witness during the enquiry. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/minister-and-chief-executive-failed-to-disclose-all-documents-ranson-tribunal-told-561607 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Apparently Mr Wright practices under another name too ............ 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, asitis said: Apparently Mr Wright practices under another name too ............ 🤣 He also played a great synth part in 'Great Gig In The Sky'. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuffolkNGoode Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 20 hours ago, Stu Peters said: Another ad hominem insult. Anyway, I try not to look at myself in mirrors as all I see is an old man looking back. Not intended as an insult - sorry you took it that way, but I can see why you felt that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 On 2/3/2024 at 6:32 AM, asitis said: 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 ! I put this on the other thread earlier. Thinking about the title of this topic, I was struck by the principal tests of the CPS in England (which I have modified slightly to fit the Ranson case) - 1 Is there enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of winning the case? 2 Is it in the public interest to go ahead? In using the phrase 'good faith', is Wright simply addressing the first test and saying that the government thought that there was enough evidence, and so that was OK? He talks about reputational damage, but doesn't really address any public interest points as such. Even with good faith wrapping the situation, the AG's Chambers (particularly the in-house lawyer Ms Heeley), Magson and the planning and conduct of the case are hammered. Another point, which MF members have already mentioned, is the appearance again of Jonny Michael. Ranson contacted him personally, so must either have known him and/or assumed that he had the power to intervene. Was she another of his nepotistic placements in our health system like Magson? Are there others? PS - it might be easier if the mods locked the shorter thread. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentience Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 21 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: Yes Gladys I’m in complete agreement with your first two paragraphs. But as for your third I don’t think that counts as evidence. If the writer of the letter requested anonymity what better way of protecting that anonymity by shredding said letter? How absolutely ironic It is, that it is your 3rd paragraph that shows just how much you are such a Government schill, or, how absolutely naïve you are as to the length these sort of people will go to, to protect their so called 'integrity'. They simply don't have any, or basic honesty for that matter! Edited February 5 by Sentience Clarification. 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.