Govt 'acted in good faith' over Ranson

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

Seems unlikely, given his alleged participation in the so-called Grantham meeting(s)…

Was the Grantham meeting the one nobody took minutes for?

I wasn't aware there was a legal case investigating the employment of a former DHSC CEO! I wonder who that could be..

[Jarndyce]

33 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Was the Grantham meeting the one nobody took minutes for?

That’s the one: no official minute of what seems to be a very high level meeting; an unusual circumstance, one would imagine - unless there was something to hide…🤔

The only written notes turned up in Magson’s day book - and they weren’t disclosed to the tribunal until very late in the process and after some serious pressure had been applied - apparently.

Edited February 6 by Jarndyce
Punctuation

[Andy Onchan]

On 2/5/2024 at 12:07 AM, hampsterkahn said:

It is an established tradition on MF, but we do seem to have deviated off-topic.

The  question originally presented, focussed on the expression ‘ In good faith’ , which is included in the summary  of  the Wright Report into the conduct of IOMG with regard to the handling of the ‘Dr Ranson’ matter.

What does it mean in this context? 
Is it simply ‘ Damning with faint praise’ ?

Is this  rather like a charitable examiner giving a mark or two  for ‘ effort’ and adding another couple for  attending and  succeeding in  putting their name on the exam paper?
Do we infer that although the destination of the IOMG action should have been obviously  calamitous, they  doggedly pursued it and  adhered to their path in the name of due process?

Having set forth, they stuck to the route.No matter the cost to the tax payer.

Their map-reading was faultless and their blinkered adherence to the path must not  be questioned.

 

Good faith or not, seems to me that it was not properly risk assessed.

[Hocus Pocus]

"In good faith" and "failures in good governance" in this case meant Wright having to present findings as dozy incompetence at AGC and IOMG.  These events 100% deserved intense public scrutiny; which could have been avoided had civil servants and Ministers not deployed broom and carpet. They collectively sought to clamp down by consistently and unlawfully refusing to answer FOIs and DSARs in a timely and complete manner, even using DHSC money to pay Callin Wild to threaten a SLAPP against the bloke with a camera.  What was being hidden from the public in 2023, we now are told by Wright, was AGC legal incompetence and organisational disfunction combined with wider IOMG failures in good governance. Not the finding of professional competence in government the public might expect.

Wright and Brunner both even managed to re-write dispositive (and un-appealed) judicial findings of fact after hearing witness evidence on oath tested by cross-examination in public before the Tribunal.  Theirs were IOMG commissioned £320k and £1.4m "reviews" with no power to compel witnesses or test evidence, conducted on an informal and confidential basis.  Neither "review" received any co-operation from Dr R who had withdrawn in July 2023 because DHSC had not sent Brunner all her email folders - deleted.  The truth or otherwise of these reviews is down to acceptance by political Tynwald vote. Thus history is re-written by the victors - add tropes about lessons learned etc.

Bewildering, when Dr R only asked for her job back in the letter before claim first sent to Ashford.

Is the Manx government system fit for purpose?

[Dirty Buggane]

NO, nor is the civil service. Both seem to have spent an inordinate amount of our money on cover ups and misdirection.

[Non-Believer]

No, and hasn't been for many a year. Elected completely out of their depths everywhere and total loss of democratic control.

[Dirty Buggane]

And before the, it all happened before my time start shouting This was being played out on your watch and not one of you thought "hey what the fuck is happening, best start asking some questions"?.

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, cissolt said:

Was the Grantham meeting the one nobody took minutes for?

I wasn't aware there was a legal case investigating the employment of a former DHSC CEO! I wonder who that could be..

Missing from the reply is that the post of a CEO is exempt from requiring a work permit.  Or am I missing something? 

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Missing from the reply is that the post of a CEO is exempt from requiring a work permit.  Or am I missing something? 

A little.  It's been answered in an extremely complicated and confusing manner.  But on page 2 of the main reply letter is this:

The Employment of a Chief Officer of a Government Department is covered by a statutory exemption under Section 7(1) of the Act, subject to subsection (2) (conditions), therefore the role of DHSC Chief Officer is automatically exempted from the requirements of having a work permit under Section 6 of the Act as identified in Schedule 1 part 6 (Senior public service appointments).

However as part of the process for such exempt appointments:

The Regulations also allow for the failure to provide the required information to be an offence under the Regulations.

As there are no conditions set by Regulations in regards to this post, the obligation of the employer is to provide the Department with such information proscribed in the Regulations within the timescales required.

As such it is likely that the extent of any potential offence is limited to that requirement to provide information to the Department.

So while a work permit wasn't needed, there may have been legally required paperwork that wasn't done and supplied to the Work Permits Department.  The various Acts and so on are also appended to the reply (ref: 3593099).

I suspect someone's trying to the bottom of Magson's employment status etc and there's a lot of barriers being put up - though what they're hiding is another matter.

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

A little.  It's been answered in an extremely complicated and confusing manner.  But on page 2 of the main reply letter is this:

The Employment of a Chief Officer of a Government Department is covered by a statutory exemption under Section 7(1) of the Act, subject to subsection (2) (conditions), therefore the role of DHSC Chief Officer is automatically exempted from the requirements of having a work permit under Section 6 of the Act as identified in Schedule 1 part 6 (Senior public service appointments).

However as part of the process for such exempt appointments:

The Regulations also allow for the failure to provide the required information to be an offence under the Regulations.

As there are no conditions set by Regulations in regards to this post, the obligation of the employer is to provide the Department with such information proscribed in the Regulations within the timescales required.

As such it is likely that the extent of any potential offence is limited to that requirement to provide information to the Department.

So while a work permit wasn't needed, there may have been legally required paperwork that wasn't done and supplied to the Work Permits Department.  The various Acts and so on are also appended to the reply (ref: 3593099).

I suspect someone's trying to the bottom of Magson's employment status etc and there's a lot of barriers being put up - though what they're hiding is another matter.

Perhaps the paperwork was not provided because she was not employed, rather she was provided under a secondment agreement with whatever NHS Trust actually employed her.  That is the murky area and was raised on here ages ago.  What was her employment status and also, was there was a secondment or other agreement with the NHS Trust or any recourse against them? 

The work permit aspect is a sideshow. 

[Wake Up Call]

Did the police get involved in this at all? Stuff changed, went missing, fabrication, dishonesty. That kind of thing.

[WTF]

6 minutes ago, Wake Up Call said:

Did the police get involved in this at all? Stuff changed, went missing, fabrication, dishonesty. That kind of thing.

if they did get involved, they were probably in on it.

[cissolt]

33 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Perhaps the paperwork was not provided because she was not employed, rather she was provided under a secondment agreement with whatever NHS Trust actually employed her.  That is the murky area and was raised on here ages ago.  What was her employment status and also, was there was a secondment or other agreement with the NHS Trust or any recourse against them? 

The work permit aspect is a sideshow. 

Seems they are going to great lengths to cover something up, I seem to remember multiple ministers claiming she was employed full time by the department.

[Hocus Pocus]

1 hour ago, Dirty Buggane said:

And before the, it all happened before my time start shouting This was being played out on your watch and not one of you thought "hey what the fuck is happening, best start asking some questions"?.

Very true - where was the debate in Tynwald throughout 2022-23 about AGC incompetence and breakdown of IOMG good governance? Those swimming against the tide such as Callister, Christian, Wannenberg and Glover were either vilified by Tynwald investigations or politically shut down completely. Little wonder there is no check and balance when the other MHKs were all in the government tent.  There was no public awareness because the press re-published IOMG propaganda almost verbatim without even asking the bloke with a camera for a quote when he was the one being SLAPPed.

So the Manx government system isn't (on that metric) fit for purpose.

[Declan]

Maybe they meant "The Government acted on good faith over reason"