Jump to content

Gladys

Subscribers
  • Posts

    19,345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Posts posted by Gladys

  1. No, not down to DA alone, but he was Health Minister and, it would seem, backed the wrong side or didn't enquire too deeply allowing this shameful situation to perpetuate. 

    That is the issue or do you think Ministers should just simply shrug and say that their officials  got it wrong?

    If so, what is the point of the Ministerial structure?  

    It is unfortunate what happened to Dr Ranson? No, it is a f*cking disgrace and all those complicit, either actively, or wilfully blind or incompetent should not be remaining in positions of authority and trust,  because they have simply failed in their obligation to serve the GMP fairly, competently and adequately.  They are in a position of public trust and have simply failed to honour that obligation, whether civil servant or politician.  I emphasise servant because that is their role; to serve the public.

    A very sad day for Manx politics and democracy.  The list of those tainted was expanded exponentially today. 

     

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 2
  2. 5 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

    The bottom line is that if we want rich people to move here and invest here then having someone in charge of treasury who has been proved to be a manipulative lying weasel does nothing into inspire confidence in those circles.

    Thats more then reason why nothing has been done in the past rather than some members holding something over other members.

    Its all about showing a united professional, trustworthy team of people who will look after your investments  

    And the man in charge of the treasury of the IOM is neither professional or trustworthy.

    Of course he should go - but that would also leave the Island open to the possibility of investors taking their money elsewhere.

    Risk management. 

    But, with enough spin, this could be turned into a strength not a weakness. 

    Why would investors pull their money because he resigns?

    • Like 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

    He doesn’t need to have any hold over him.

    Keeping confidence in government is king. Acknowledging that one of their members is declared a manipulative liar reflects badly on the whole organisation and ‘image’ is what it’s all about on the world stage.

    Loosing confidence in government is a dangerous precedent and can lead to breakdown of the system so it must be held together at any cost.

    My opinion is that instead of it being a threat, it could, in skilled hands, be turned into a tremendous opportunity for change.

    And it needs to change. 

    Indeed, most threats also provide an opportunity.  CT on MR today was quite clear that DA needs to resign so that a line can be drawn and action taken to address the institional failings within the CS and, I would add, in how it interacts with Ministers and MHKs. 

    • Like 4
  4. 1 minute ago, Ghost Ship said:

    Oh - I think you may have misunderstood.  I meant I was asking a stupid question.  I think it's obvious that they don't want ministers with an enquiring mind.

    (a) Some people ask questions because they don't know something but want to find out about it.

    (b) Some people don't ask questions when they should because they don't want to appear stupid.

    (c) Some people don't ask questions because they are stupid.

    (d) Some people don't ask questions because they know they aren't meant to... 

    Two of these qualities are essential for success in some jobs.

    I didn't misunderstand 😉

    • Thanks 1
  5. 2 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

    Is an inabilty to ask questions (like: "Why is this sub judice?") a pre-requisite for aspiring ministers?

    (Sorry - that's a daft question, isn't it?)

    Well, it isn't really.  It is a basic demonstration of an inquiring mind. 

  6. 6 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

    Because they want to be ministers. I believe Rob Callister has stated that he was disappointed not to be made a minster at the last reorganisation.

    But there were those who said they didn't want a Ministerial post as a cornerstone of their campaign?

    • Like 1
  7. 5 minutes ago, cissolt said:

    True, not many current mhks would hope to earn more than that in regular life. 

    Civil servant equivalent of a heo or higher?

    I hoped some of the newer intake would have more shown more moral fortitude.

    Why would the back benchers not question this?  They have nothing to lose, they can't be ousted.  That is the point of them, isn't it?

    • Like 3
  8. 5 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:


    The Kiribati report reached conclusions

    It is the Nolan Principles that apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder

    Keys members can only be judged by their peers unless there is clear breach of statute surely?

    Well, I have probably been a bit of a joke on here, but I have been banging on about the Nolan Principles for ages.  No one listened. 

    Are Ministers not subject to them?

  9. 2 minutes ago, asitis said:

    I expect Sub Judice is a stalling tactic until they figure out how to firefight this !

    They just might have the impression this pile is a little too big to fit under the carpet ! 

    Of course it is, but it is an example of the disdain they have for us and that it is swallowed hook, line and sinker by the MHKs gives you a fair indication of what is so wrong with this island. 

    The damage limitation is not intended to protect the island and its people, but the system which has so patently and disastrously failed.

    Yet no one, absolutely no-one, has stood up and said "we have got this and will deal with it effectively in your and the island's  best interests". 

    Not one single MHK. 

    No, it will wait a week. 

    This reply should really be on the other thread.

    • Like 4
  10. 5 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

    There is outrage on this forum because of this case, but I do not think that you should view this as an isolated, extreme, occurrence. There have been many other comments here and in the press about bullying and harassment in government but none have generated this level of response, not because the incidents were less severe but because they were not so unambiguously and publicly documented.

    A while ago I made this post about an brief encounter I had with Malcolm Couch:

    "A couple of years ago at the endoscopy public meeting in Ramsey, after the meeting was over I attempted to engage Couch in polite conversation. For a few minutes he just stared at me with a blank face, until eventually, without saying a single word, he turned his back on me and walked away.
    In have never come across such a pig-ignorant person. I was astounded that someone like that could have been given such a job - because he did not get like that overnight, and I doubt that behaviour was reserved for just me."

    I have the opinion that this attitude is prevalent throughout government, and that include the MHKs. They are all people who feel they are superior to others.

    The attitude of the MHKs who refuse to comment on this case - quoting some irrelevancy - are adopting the same attitude as Couch. They are turning their back on you and walking away. You are irrelevant. Their behaviour is insulting.

     

    I don't think anyone is looking at it as an aberration, but it is the first time the gritty, sordid details have been published.

    Years ago, (back in the mid 80s) people felt the accessibility of politicians was one of our defining features.  Where else could you meet your most senior politician (it wasn't CM then, I think) or Head of Treasury on Prospect Hill and engage with them?  They were visible, accessible and accountable.

    Not so now, which is such a shame because they are all (and I mean all MHKs) swept up in a kind of arrogance (or fear?) of position, forgetting the basics that they serve one master, the Manx public. 

    That no-one seems to be questioning the sub judice edict and what it really means or applies to, just reiterates the point.  Who gave that advice and on what basis? 

    The term "busted flush" comes to mind. 

    • Like 3
  11. 4 minutes ago, 2112 said:

    I totally agree with you in that. If a jolly to London was required, perhaps they should have sought a meeting with the BMA and other relevant health care members professions. After all, I am sure that their membership here aren’t happy with both the DHSC and Manx Care, and I would say that some bridge building and making amends, may help. This island the way it’s going is going to find itself blacklisted as a decent place to work.

    I often 75% agree with your posts, but on this it is 100%.  

    The lack of a fast damage limitation exercise is woeful. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...