The Reality Of The Mea Saga....

[momo65]

You should be on the panel which advises the Manx NHS. They were looking for lay members a little while back - but perhaps only those who agree with the present set up.

 

We appear to have no means of comparison on how our consultants are performing - the mortality rates, clear up rates. Most things appear to get the reply let's see how it goes in the UK before we do anything here.

 

Unfortunately I don't meet one of the key requirements you mention for that group! I have however, had signficant NHS exeperience including (but not exclusive to) management in the UK.

 

Comparing consultants performance (or indeed a GPs performance) is very difficult - because the sample size (ie the number of people going through an individuals hands) is relatively small and thus subject to wild variations just by chance. This is likely to be even more so with small total population. What might be worth looking at is the performance of a given "unit" eg the surgical unit against similar units elsewhere - but choosing the variables to compare is tricky. One of the classic ones is "number of unexpected readmissions" following surgery (implying unexpected complications). However, it comes as no surprise to find that those with the least number of unexpected readmissions just happen to be the ones with the longest average stay in hospital (so the complications are being had whilst they are still in rather than at home!) - yet long stays are "inefficient" and expensive. So in reality what is the quality standard you should aim for? Perhaps average length of stay and average readmission rate. However, for politicians, saying something like "Isn't this good, my local hospital is AVERAGE for x & y" doesn't sound good!

[Last Ten]

Unfortunately I don't meet one of the key requirements you mention for that group! I have however, had signficant NHS exeperience including (but not exclusive to) management in the UK.

 

Comparing consultants performance (or indeed a GPs performance) is very difficult - because the sample size (ie the number of people going through an individuals hands) is relatively small and thus subject to wild variations just by chance. This is likely to be even more so with small total population. What might be worth looking at is the performance of a given "unit" eg the surgical unit against similar units elsewhere - but choosing the variables to compare is tricky. One of the classic ones is "number of unexpected readmissions" following surgery (implying unexpected complications). However, it comes as no surprise to find that those with the least number of unexpected readmissions just happen to be the ones with the longest average stay in hospital (so the complications are being had whilst they are still in rather than at home!) - yet long stays are "inefficient" and expensive. So in reality what is the quality standard you should aim for? Perhaps average length of stay and average readmission rate. However, for politicians, saying something like "Isn't this good, my local hospital is AVERAGE for x & y" doesn't sound good!

So momo65 how do you think Nobles Hospital rates against some of the comparisons that you have quoted above?

 

LT

[Charles Flynn]

Unfortunately I don't meet one of the key requirements you mention for that group! I have however, had signficant NHS exeperience including (but not exclusive to) management in the UK.

 

Comparing consultants performance (or indeed a GPs performance) is very difficult - because the sample size (ie the number of people going through an individuals hands) is relatively small and thus subject to wild variations just by chance. This is likely to be even more so with small total population. What might be worth looking at is the performance of a given "unit" eg the surgical unit against similar units elsewhere - but choosing the variables to compare is tricky. One of the classic ones is "number of unexpected readmissions" following surgery (implying unexpected complications). However, it comes as no surprise to find that those with the least number of unexpected readmissions just happen to be the ones with the longest average stay in hospital (so the complications are being had whilst they are still in rather than at home!) - yet long stays are "inefficient" and expensive. So in reality what is the quality standard you should aim for? Perhaps average length of stay and average readmission rate. However, for politicians, saying something like "Isn't this good, my local hospital is AVERAGE for x & y" doesn't sound good!

So momo65 how do you think Nobles Hospital rates against some of the comparisons that you have quoted above?

 

Charles Flynn Replies:

 

Momo65:

 

Neither did I a couple of years ago. I was told I would be regarded as lay as I have not actively been involved in health care for some years but was turned down despite many year of experiences at senior levels. No dissent is allowed.

 

You are very valuable because of your expertise and you should be on this consultative body. Last ten has asked a very pertinent question. We would be interested in having your input.

 

LT

[momo65]

So momo65 how do you think Nobles Hospital rates against some of the comparisons that you have quoted above?

 

LT

 

 

Of course we have NO data at all in the public domain that is easily accessible that will answer that. That is one of the reasons that the UK Healthcare Commission has been asked to do a report on Noble's Hospital. I believe that anyone can make a submission to them at the moment.

 

My "feel" is that the hospital's performance is not all that much different from other provider units of similar size (although the niumber of UK general hospitals with such a small population is reducing all the time). My own view is not that there is anything wrong with the hospital per se. I think there are considerable gaps in the NHS service and whenever anything crops up (eg orthopaedic waiting lists) the solution is to try to buy "more of the same" without actually looking at different ways of doing the job.

 

So sticking with the orthopaedic surgery waiting lists - each consultant will do probably 3 or 4 (at most) operating sessions per week. In each of those they may do 2-3 major and several minor ops. So adding an extra consultant at the cost of about £200K (ie support staff/facilities) would get you 4 hip replacements per week at best (allowing for holidays etc).

 

Now there are two waits in the system - the first is the wait to see the consultant and the second is the wait to get the operation once seen. About 60% of people referred to an orthopaedic surgeon will not have an operation. So only about a third of those seen actually need to see a SURGEON. Thus 2/3rds of people waiting to be seen by the SURGEON don't need to see him - which means that between 1-2 sessions per week per surgeon is actually wasted - which (if the theatre time, beds, and suport staff allow) could be spent operating. So if we started with 3 surgeons they could do 3-6 extra surgical sessions per week (which is more than the extra surgeon will provide). So by simply seeing the "right person" at the "right time" the list could be cut.

 

Obviously, the 2/3rds referred by GPs need something GPs aren't at present alowed to do. Think of someone with back pain - if the GP feels they MAY need a scan to exclude something requiring surgery then they HAVE to refer ('cos GPs here aren't allowed to arrange scans) - equally, GP referrals to physio will only get you a certain number of sessions - if you need more then you have to be referred. So by changing things and allowing more physio and setting up a "musculoskeletal service" waiting times reduce with small expenditure and patients get better treatment. This isn't all that new - Aintree in Liverpool have been doing it for 5 years - with good results.

 

Now, despite the length of this post, it does simplify things a little but I'm sure you get the idea. Again though, politicians here haven't taken on board that setting up an alternative service may not sound as good as "we've appointed more consultants" but it's more effective!

[Chinahand]

Was the rationale behind a gas pipeline ever made public?

 

Paging Chinahand to thread. Your mates need backing again.

 

Look I just happen to know the PKF report inside out and upside down! I've always tried to back up any statements I've made with publicly available data to show I'm not talking rubbish ... the fact that these facts differ from the scandal mongers perceptions doesn't make me a glove puppet. I think the facts of the MEA affair need to come into the public domain and that's what I'm doing.

 

Why the gas pipeline?

 

I'd advice people to go and read page 92 of:

Hansard

 

and search for Gas in:

MEA Board Response to PKF report

 

Also this has been subject to lengthy DTI reports etc which were debated in Tynwald etc: use google to search site:www.tynwald.org.im for gas. You'll get 50 or so hits and I've read every single one ... the pipeline was approved after a long consultative process that involved many more stakeholders than the MEA.

 

It wasn't unilaterally built by the MEA, but only after it was approved by DTI and Treasury and passed by Tynwald. Hence my gripping that blaming the MEA for all the problems is nuts.

 

You want my take on it.

 

In the 1990's the Island was supplied by heavy diesel. This was polluting and required regular deliveries by oil tanker. The oil was then shipped to Peel and Pulrose via road. If we only had this method of supply approximately 100 lorry deliveries a week would be required at Pulrose alone, and the air pollution would be a serious health risk (we are generating approximately twice the output we were in 1990).

 

Marine safety now requires double hulled ships, but no such vessels exist small enough to get into the Islands ports: either we'd have to get a whole new class of carrier designed and built, or have a major dredging operation and a major expansion of the port, plus much larger on Island storage facilities, offshore booms for delivery etc etc. These options would have costs in the same order of magnitude as the pipeline.

 

But they wouldn't solve the pollution or delivery problems to the actual power station OR reduce the COST.

 

Due to environmental standards and pollution control legislation the MEA has changed over to light diesel which has a considerably lower soot and sulpur content than heavy diesel, but which is more expensive (And it obviously still needs to be delivered by ship). Current fuel costs for the MEA are £19 million. If the only available fuel was diesel it would be over £40 million ... be very very glad we've now got a diverse power supply ... look up Bermuda's electricity costs on the web

 

Bermuda Electric Light Company

 

They have the same problems as us in a similar population and their energy per unit is 15p odd per unit including their Fuel cost adjustment.

 

That is what we would be paying if the Capital projects hadn't been undertaken ... erm I think we'd be complaining then wouldn't we!

 

The pipeline has diversified the Islands energy resources and provided Natural gas for domestic use. The MEA spent approximately £20 million providing a pressure reduction station to provide gas to the domestic market ... they needn't have spent it, but it allows natural gas to be provided to Douglas and hopefully in the near future to the rest of the Island ... Natural gas is considerably cheaper than town or bottled gas imported into the Island via gas carrier.

 

One of the other so called cost over runs in the project was the cross Island Pipeline which cost £25 million. Originally the costs of this were going to be paid for up front by BGE and charged back to the MEA over the lifetime of the pipeline (60 years). However due to planning permission difficulties it just wasn't possible for them to do it in the time schedules required and so the MEA built it themselves having to find the £25 million up front. This wasn't in fact an additional cost, rather the cash flows for it have been spread out differently over time: all up front rather than over 60 years ... from a finance point of view its identical.

 

So a cheaper, less polluting energy source has been provided to the Island which can also be used by the general public ... yep it cost sheds to build it, but over 60 years it pays for itself ... hence no change in Triple A ratings etc when the finances are examined by 3rd party ratings agencies.

 

The MEA spending has cost £420 million pounds thus far.

Are you sure about this figure TheTool?

LT

 

The £420 million figure is a combination of 2 things; the £300 million in debt (the £180 million bond and £120 million Barclays loans) and £120 million of contractural obligations regarding the pipeline. Calling the £120 million a loan is confusing ... These are payments that are going to be made over the next 30 or so years as the pipeline is used ie its a financial rather than an operating lease. [maybe its even 60 years I forget and can't be bothered to spend a couple of hours reading the PKF report trying to find out!].

 

We know about these contracted payments so they are included on the Balance sheet, but equally the MEA is going to buy probably billions of pounds worth of Gas, Oil and imported electricity over the next 60 years ... these commitments aren't signed sealed and delivered and so aren't on the Balance sheet.

 

Mixing the two figures together to get £420 million is just confusing.

 

The MEA affair has NOT significantly affected the government's financing; hence no change to the Triple A rating. Treasury deciding to finance the costs entirely out of existing budgets is their decision; they could have got the money by leasing out the powerstation, selling the gas pipeline to BGE or by taking out another bond etc. The cash flows would then have matched the revenue generated by the assets smoothing out the budget and not requiring any current cuts. The MEA's problems are related to smoothing out the cashflows the assets generate, not their lifetime profitability.

 

The MEA board always assumed the bond would be tapped as shown in there replies to PKF... this had been raised when the original bond was floated and investors asked what would happen if there would be cost overruns. As far as I'm aware the MEA did a considerable amount of work to get private financing arranged to cover the costs, but this all came to nothing as it all became too political.

 

Blaming the MEA for budget issues in the Health department doesn't make sense ... but Ans said that in 2 sentences ... while I've used 200

[TheTool]

Ok people this is what £320 million buys you in the philippines

 

Link

 

And we the manx tax payer i mean spent £420 million.

 

Note to MEA 2+2=4 3+3=6 4+4=8 etc etc

[LoneWolf]

It wasn't unilaterally built by the MEA, but only after it was approved by DTI and Treasury and passed by Tynwald. Hence my gripping that blaming the MEA for all the problems is nuts.

 

About time someone said that. isnt it nuts as well to blame the Attorney General (letters of comfort and all that ?)

 

In the 1990's the Island was supplied by heavy diesel. This was polluting and required regular deliveries by oil tanker. The oil was then shipped to Peel and Pulrose via road. If we only had this method of supply approximately 100 lorry deliveries a week would be required at Pulrose alone, and the air pollution would be a serious health risk (we are generating approximately twice the output we were in 1990).

 

Over half of MEA requirement can be met by the cable. Maximum Demand has doubled, not the total output, but yes the Island would need heavy fuel oil. MEA would not need to generate anywhere near as much as it did in 1990 when all power was supplied from diesel engines. MEA has a cable remember.

Peel is supplied via sea tanker not road tanker.

 

Marine safety now requires double hulled ships, but no such vessels exist small enough to get into the Islands ports:

 

Yes they exist but there arent many of them and scheduling would be a problem

 

Due to environmental standards and pollution control legislation the MEA has changed over to light diesel which has a considerably lower soot and sulpur content than heavy diesel, but which is more expensive

 

Sorry but thats not the reason for the change to light fuel oil

 

They have the same problems as us in a similar population and their energy per unit is 15p odd per unit including their Fuel cost adjustment.

That is what we would be paying if the Capital projects hadn't been undertaken ... erm I think we'd be complaining then wouldn't we!

You need to do a few sums here. The Government is currently holding down the cost of power by subsidising MEA operation. If this subsidy was not there and MEA had to cover its costs we would have to pay about 18p per unit. If the capital projects hadnt been undertaken this wouldnt be so. More to the point if another cable had been laid for much less money than the gas project cost then MEA would be able to provide power without being subsidised and at about the same cost as now or less. It wasnt MEA choice to bring gas to the Island I agree.

 

So a cheaper, less polluting energy source has been provided to the Island which can also be used by the general public ... yep it cost sheds to build it, but over 60 years it pays for itself ... hence no change in Triple A ratings etc when the finances are examined by 3rd party ratings agencies.

 

Spot on but at a ridiculous cost. Bad business decision.

 

The MEA affair has NOT significantly affected the government's financing;

 

Except of course for the annual 20 million big ones in subsidy

 

My take on this is a bit similar to ChinaHand. The Government were involved in the decision to bring gas to the Island. At least 2 of the current crop of Government Ministers have been heavily involved in the gas project and have tried their best to avoid responsibility. Mike Proffitt looks to have been scapegoated for the huge costs and the Attorney General seems to be taking the blame for evidence showing the Council of Ministers knew more than they like crack on about.

Just set all that asideand try to think about 20 years ahead. My gut feeling is that we will all be grateful this huge infrastructure has been put in place. It might have been better to have put in another cable but that didnt happen and who knows anyhow.

[TheTool]

i don't think we are saying the infastructure was not needed it think its the cost of the projects that is worrying.

 

I was chatting to someone and they know a friend in the uk and where he lives they built a similar power station to our's for £75 million.

 

We are just concerned that the isle of man has paid near double for the same thing.

 

Nobles Hospital another example.

 

We need value for money that all most people want.

[LoneWolf]

i don't think we are saying the infastructure was not needed it think its the cost of the projects that is worrying.

 

I was chatting to someone and they know a friend in the uk and where he lives they built a similar power station to our's for £75 million.

 

We are just concerned that the isle of man has paid near double for the same thing.

 

Nobles Hospital another example.

 

We need value for money that all most people want.

 

Its the big numbers which scare people me included.

ChinaHand is right to say this is 50 or 60 years of infrastructure that has been put in place.

He is also right that the Governemnt have decided to pay for it upfront rather than follow a sensible finance route over the wholelifetime of the infrastructure. Maybe someone could explain that decision ?

To be fair, wherever your friend lives in the UK there wouldnt have been a need to take a t connection off an undersea interconnector at huge cost. So the cost comparison isnt valid.

I dont think we got value for money but we did get a huge infrastructure delivered which IMHO we will all be grateful for in 20 years time.

[Chinahand]

Due to environmental standards and pollution control legislation the MEA has changed over to light diesel which has a considerably lower soot and sulpur content than heavy diesel, but which is more expensive

 

Sorry but thats not the reason for the change to light fuel oil

 

Then what was the reason? I'm also aware that the light oil requires less maintenance, is easier to handle, and has a more efficient burning temperature. These, plus the pollution issues, are all small contributors to explaining the willingness to pay a significant increase in costs ... I don't think there is one major cause of the fuel change and so I don't think leading on air pollution and sulpur content is unfair ... Am I missing something significant ... I'm not aware I am!

 

Maximum Demand has doubled, not the total output

 

Erm I think I’m more right than you are! 1990 GWh generated equalled approximately 235 GWh; 2005 about 420 GWh … I don’t have the exact figures on me, but these are close enough and close enough to say its approximately doubled.

 

 

 

[bermudians] ... have the same problems as us in a similar population and their energy per unit is 15p odd per unit including their Fuel cost adjustment.

That is what we would be paying if the Capital projects hadn't been undertaken ... erm I think we'd be complaining then wouldn't we!

You need to do a few sums here. The Government is currently holding down the cost of power by subsidising MEA operation. If this subsidy was not there and MEA had to cover its costs we would have to pay about 18p per unit. If the capital projects hadnt been undertaken this wouldnt be so. More to the point if another cable had been laid for much less money than the gas project cost then MEA would be able to provide power without being subsidised and at about the same cost as now or less. It wasnt MEA choice to bring gas to the Island I agree.

 

I have done the sums! Yep I was being simplistic, but I think it is you who have got your sums wrong. Yep the MEA is being subsidized by £20 million ... if the MEA had to fully cover all its costs the £20 million would have to be covered, BUT that would "only" increase the per unit cost to about 15p NOT the 18p your claiming ... 15p a unit is a 30% increase to about the same level as Bermuda ... BUT our cost base is NOT the same as Bermuda's: it's more complex than that because the 30% increase isn't solely due to fuel costs. Bermuda is totally diesel dependent, we have the ADVANTAGE of GAS.

 

I expect the Fair Trading people will show that unit price should be about 15% higher if fuel costs were taken fully into account, the other 15% subsidy is a finance cost which doesn't need to be borne now ... If Treasury had taken out a bond these costs would have temporarily been covered by the cash injection. Later on as capacity grows the extra cash generated would be used to pay this back.

 

I can hear the cynics now talking about pie in the sky and Jam tomorrow, but this is a monopoly electricity supplier; its revenue predictions are more stable than almost any other industry you can imagine; All finance is a risk, but the MEA's risk profile is VERY LOW. Hence an infrastructure project going something like 30% over the initial estimate (and expanding another 30% in scope) HAS NOT over the lifetime of the assets made them uneconomic, just less economic than was originally expected.

 

The debate about cables verses new power stations is an issue of a chicken and an egg ... Once again the decision to keep generating capacity on the Island and NOT have two cables wasn't the MEA's but was taken after a similar process to the gas pipeline also involving Tynwald, the DTI and Treasury etc.

 

Having all your power, or even half of it dependent on a single cable is extremely risky ... Ask the city of Aukland ... and so it is sensible to maintain generating capacity on the Island.

 

It is highly likely that another cable will be built in the next 20-25 years. My suggestion is link it to Eire and take advantage of the 20 minute difference in lighting up time between the UK and Ireland.

 

The scenario you are advocating would have been to put in two cables now, but in 20 years time I think it would be highly likely that the MEA would have to add more on-island generating capacity. But if we'd let our generating plant stagnate and age, we'd have lost expertise and skills and getting those back to install new plant in a generation would be costly.

 

Also if we were dependent on just cables if one of these cables had tripped without on-Island supplies being sufficient the power outages would have a significant economic effect.

 

I'm not convinced maintaining on Island generating was "a bad business decision" but more importantly this decision was made with wide consultation and wasn't forced upon the Island by Mike Proffit as some of the vitriol being heaped upon him and the rest of the MEA claims.

 

The way the MEA affair has been handled has made its consequences far worse for the island. This was unnecessary and to quote the old advert "made a drama out of a crisis" . It isn't clear that the MEA decisions were bad, but they could probably have been better ... but that is asking to people to consider nuances that don't seem to be appropriate for a chat forum ... or Tynwald.

[TheTool]

ChinaHand i understand where you are coming from and the whole thing should have been handled better, but it still doesnt take away the fact that the isle of man was ripped off and overcharged.

 

If you would look at the link i put up there was a power station built is probably twice the size of the isle of man's new power station but it cost the same.

 

This means somebody somewhere has done alright for themselves.

 

Your quote Hence an infrastructure project going something like 30% over the initial estimate (and expanding another 30% in scope) HAS NOT over the lifetime of the assets made them uneconomic, just less economic than was originally expected.

 

Is that not another way of saying we paid more than we should off

 

 

What is worry to me is if this can happen whats stopping it from happening again ?

 

Mr Profit went behind the back of the government to secure money and not even tell anyone till he had too, is that not grounds for misconduct ?

[Bill Posters]

Although the MEA might be partly to blame for the reason that there isn't much money around, isn't a much more important question how the DHSS managed to overspend by 8 million?

 

Yes, a very important question. Fortunately, it is getting discussed in public.

 

Yet, if anyone employed by Government should overspend their individual budgets, there would be all hell to pay. It's also likely that they would keep it quiet.

[Chinahand]

...

If you would look at the link i put up there was a power station built is probably twice the size of the isle of man's new power station but it cost the same.

 

This means somebody somewhere has done alright for themselves.

 

... we paid more than we should off

 

What is worry to me is if this can happen whats stopping it from happening again ?

 

Mr Profit went behind the back of the government to secure money and not even tell anyone till he had too, is that not grounds for misconduct ?

 

Tool, I think it is very difficult to compare like with like: the MEA installed the worlds longest AC cable, built something like 30 miles of gas pipeline, provided all the support infrastructure for domestic gas to be used on the Island, demolished an old power station and built the new one on a brown field site which had to be cleared of pollutants, had the lead contractor go bankrupt half way through the project etc etc.

 

Your link was sharing all its fuel supplies with a preexisting facility right next door to it, is a green field site etc etc. It just isn't comparable!

 

The Island demand is tiny compared to the huge scheme you've identified; the advantages of scale in these types of project are huge and the IOM has no scale!

 

The PKF report makes it clear that there was no fraud or theft. You claim that because it cost more than initially expected we've been robbed, I say the initial estimates were too optimistic and only specified about 3/4 of the project. BUT the people doing the specifying always stated that the costs presented were INITIAL ESTIMATES of a project that wasn't fully specified.

 

All the spending was reported to Treasury, though mistakes were made in interim returns in the years 2001 and 2002, the audited accounts presented to Treasury and Tynwald corrected these errors (thats what auditing is all about!).

 

You say Proffitt hid things; no way; the MEA fully reported all his capital spends as required. Treasury didn't bat an eye as the reports came in and never reconciled all the information given to them. This was a terrible communications break down and both sides blame the other for letting it occur. In fact they are BOTH responsible.

 

Treasury told the MEA what to report, which the MEA did. The MEA had previously raised funds for capital projects via the private sector without treasury permission and did so again when it became clear the project was larger than initially expected and more expensive. The spending of this money was reported, the raising of it wasn't ... why ... because the procedures they were working to hadn't required them to!

 

The issue is whether they needed prior permision for MCC to take out loans. This hadn't happened in 1999; all the advice and procedures said what they did in 2003 and 2004 was just as had happened in 1999. And no one had screamed fraud then.

 

Do you really think the MEA wanted to be accussed of acting illegally, theft and misappropriation?

 

All I can do is quote what they said to Tynwald:

"We find it beyond belief that anyone in Government would believe that we would have deliberately or even carelessly omitted to obtain specific Government approval to further financial arrangements with

our bankers had we been remotely aware that such sanctions were required or expected."

 

I totally agree with you proceedures need to be put in place to stop it occuring again ... now that is a proper job for government reform.

[FCMR]

Had to post a reply on this topic regardless of the court order out against us, but can someone tell me WHY the DHSS HAS not paid back the £85 million they borrowed from OUR pension fund to build the new Hospital and why knowing that the Islands pension fund is near bankrupt do they still take moneys from our wages/earnings for a pension

[P.K.]

"We find it beyond belief that anyone in Government would believe that we would have deliberately or even carelessly omitted to obtain specific Government approval to further financial arrangements with our bankers had we been remotely aware that such sanctions were required or expected."

It's clever wording though, isn't it? Doesn't it mean "If we thought we had to tell them then we would have. But as we didn't have to then we didn't".

 

The arrogance of those in Tynwald just amazes me. Faced with a monster capital overspend the Minister declares:

We can afford to repay this money. It is as a result of the prudence, and the hard work of previous Governments, over the last 20 years, that have got got us to this position. It is something we should be enormously proud of, when you think we are only a small community of 76,000 to 77,000 people, and here we are picking up an unexpected bill of getting on for 200 million, by the time the whole thing is settled. I think that speaks volumes for the strength and robustness of the Manx economy, and the good sense of the Manx people, and the Manx Government over the last 20 years, to get us where we are today.

Note the royal "We" in who can afford to pay, the "unexpected bill" bit and the "strength and robustness of the Manx economy" which is based on one market sector and saving the best for last the "get us where we are today" i.e. mired in controversy with a monster bill to pay and no-one to blame but themselves. I've heard some BS in my time but the man is a master of the brown and smelly.

 

Having read some of the stuff I can see that the decisions were not just taken by MEA but I figured that already - around here a process known as "Blamestorming". However I'm still not convinced that the decisions were sound ones.