code99 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) On 2/4/2024 at 10:14 PM, Stu Peters said: Without fashioning tinfoil headgear I think it's a mix of the two. I think it's political rather than scientific, I think scientists know which side is buttered. The 97% consensus was a fudge - it was a small sample and included mostly non-climate scientists (psychologists etc). I'm told that science is nothing to do with consensus and that science should never be considered 'settled'. I've also seen enough (I think) incontrovertible proof that the raw stats which form the basis of most doomsday hypotheses have been fudged (like historical temperature records that began with a box in a field are now in a box in a huge concrete carpark). Why do I fel like this? It began with Al Gore, and it made my spidey senses tingle with discomfort, and that has never gone away. Please check your facts – as an MHK, your opinions matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science). The science of global warming did not begin with Al Gore, e.g.: “The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed as early as 1824 by Joseph Fourier.” “In the 1850s, the American scientist Eunice Foote discovered that carbon dioxide could actually raise an environment's temperature”. “In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect”. “A new study finds Exxon's internal research (senior scientist James Black) from the 1970s predicted global warming accurately despite the company's public contradictions”. Etc, etc, etc. You may doubt global warming, but I doubt that you have ever had any of the “quiet victories” that you keep banging on about – I hoped you and your two MHK colleagues proved me wrong when “a Select Committee of three members be established to appoint a retired High Court Judge or King’s Counsel or person of similar standing to undertake an independent review into the management by the Isle of Man Government of the Ranson versus Department of Health and Social Care employment case”. What was your contribution to the report to Tynwald on Dr Ranson’s case, which the three of you have been tasked with? Edited February 6 by code99 typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 4 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said: My my, Good swerve there Stu. Did they teach that in MHK classes, how to derail and redirect a discussion that seems to be getting the better of you. I doff my cap to you. Oh I don't know. Refusing to really admit you were wrong despite all the evidence is very much on topic and is pretty much how the government and its fans have reacted throughout the whole Ranson episode. As is scrabbling around for any excuse not to change your behaviour. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 5 hours ago, code99 said: What was your contribution to the report to Tynwald on Dr Ranson’s case, which the three of you have been tasked with? Saying look this is the outcome we want or as close to it without to much of a stretch, I know its going to be a hard sell but you are being payed handsomely by the government. Do your best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
code99 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, Dirty Buggane said: Saying look this is the outcome we want or as close to it without to much of a stretch, I know its going to be a hard sell but you are being payed handsomely by the government. Do your best. Not only was the Committee tasked with setting “the terms of reference for the review” (approved by Tynwald on 18 July 2023), the three of them were also supposed “to continue to oversee the review and present it (the Review) to Tynwald”. Why did the Committee decide to appoint Richard Wright KC, and not somebody else? How were the terms of reference derived and what was involved in overseeing the review, etc, etc? Stu said “I think scientists know which side is buttered” – I am not exactly sure what he meant, but some could say that about politicians too… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 This constant assertion that all MHKs do as they are told is tiresome and just plain wrong. Richard Wright KC was chosen from a number of equally qualified applicants we interviewed as part of the selection process. The committee then took NO part in his review, and only had sight of it an hour before you did - we had decided from the outset that there must be no suggestion that IOMG had had any influence on it. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
code99 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 44 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Richard Wright KC was chosen from a number of equally qualified applicants we interviewed as part of the selection process. The committee then took NO part in his review, and only had sight of it an hour before you did - we had decided from the outset that there must be no suggestion that IOMG had had any influence on it. But Chief Minister's motion was very specific i.e. "will allow the committee to set the terms of reference for the review. Following the appointment of a person, the committee will stay in place to continue to oversee the review and present it to Tynwald" . Are you saying the Committee did not follow Tynwald's 'orders'? Oh dear, does Alf know? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 52 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: This constant assertion that all MHKs do as they are told is tiresome and just plain wrong. Richard Wright KC was chosen from a number of equally qualified applicants we interviewed as part of the selection process. The committee then took NO part in his review, and only had sight of it an hour before you did - we had decided from the outset that there must be no suggestion that IOMG had had any influence on it. That's good. Who paid him? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I’m wasting my time. You paid him. Not Alf, not me, not CoMin. The committee did exactly what was asked of it, to the point of scrupulous transparency. You may not like the outcome, but to suggest Mr Wright was anything other than thorough and fair and not simply a mouthpiece with a prepared script does him (and us as a committee) a grave discourtesy. 1 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I think you have your wires crossed, the government payed him using our money. I or any other person on the street had no choice on who was to hear the evidence and opine. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 It's our money when they want to look independent, their money when they're deciding how to spend it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 10 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said: 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? It doesn't seem likely that she was a Michael placement. I presume she contacted him because he was supposed to be at least monitoring to change from DHSC to Manx Care (and was being paid loads for it) and the main complaint was that she expected (and had reason to expect) that she would have been moved over to Medical Director of Manx Care. It was the core of her case that she won. So Michael was an obvious person to approach. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 11 hours ago, Stu Peters said: I’m wasting my time. You paid him. Not Alf, not me, not CoMin. Hey Stu you've just gone up in my estimation, at least one of you gets it, that it's the electorates money ! Perhaps you could educate the rest and get them to stop pissing it away ! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I think it's a lot of money spent on what? Frankly there's no point blamestorming it when the blindingly obvious conclusion to be drawn out of the whole sorry mess is don't hire the wrong people in the first place...! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 19 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said: Was she another of his nepotistic placements in our health system like Magson? Seems unlikely, given his alleged participation in the so-called Grantham meeting(s)… 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.