Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

407 Excellent

About maynragh

  • Rank
    MF Addicted

Recent Profile Visitors

1,095 profile views
  1. I often wonder about the folks who point out the number of vehicles here that in their opinion are not up to scratch. I wonder if these people ever leave this rock. You have to assume not. Anyone who's ever driven anywhere in the UK cannot have failed to notice the number of shit boxes on UK roads. There is also no evidence that I've ever seen to show that roadworthiness here contributes in any way to increased accident numbers. Driving standards (and the enforcement of) is far more likely to contribute. The idea that MOT style testing will somehow improve this, as anyone who has anything to do with the industry will tell you, is a joke. It is widely known that the UK MOT system is massively open to fraud, and anything based on that model here would be too - for the same reasons. Properly organised truly random testing, conducted by a fully independent agency is the only logical way to improve the situation. If done correctly it wouldn't need to significantly increase costs to taxpayers or motorists either.
  2. Irrespective of whether you like this sort of thing or not, it seems a shame that such an event can apparently only be organised by outside interests - which is presumably where the largest slice of profit will end up. So the local population who are providing / maintaining the core attraction of such an event are not seeing the full potential in return.
  3. Haven't the publishers of that document effectively just slandered the company (if it is indeed untrue)? Are they not putting themselves at fairly significant risk in doing so?
  4. maynragh


    That was sort of my point. Irrespective of who's fault it actually is the contract should (should) be structured in such a way that it can be put to one side. IOMG as client should be able to force it to move forward, even if the fault ultimately lies with them. The fact it is not being forced forward indicates either a problem with the contract, or a lack of desire to use the contract as it should have been set up.
  5. maynragh


    I see the latest comment is that they cannot even give a guesstimate on a completion date. Aside from the original error does this not now also point to a problem with the contract itself and or a lack of desire to use the terms which presumably would be in the contract if it was set up correctly to enable this sort of mess to be dealt with? It simply cannot be possible (or maybe it is) that there is no way for the client to dump a non-performing contractor or sub-contractor given of much this has effectively already cost in lost service.
  6. I don't know anything about the former Clerk to be honest, or his wife, or the former owners of the building, but the information published appears to point to a Board who felt they had been misled. It may be that there is more to it than that, and ultimately we have to assume that they all voted on it at some point - and so should have refused if they did not have the correct information, but that's where the question lies surely - a question not really answered by the information published, but one that surely must be asked given what is known?
  7. Given what seems fairly clear just from the information that has now been published isn't it odd that a criminal investigation hasn't been conducted?
  8. I see IOM Gov has now announced... "The Island has been listed as an 'approved' third country for the export of live animals and products of animal origin, such as shellfish, meat & dairy..." So not illegal after all.
  9. Hmmm, not so sure. Nothing wrong with the principle of private provision as you say, but presumably on the IOM this would end up being a monopoly provider able to hold the entire population (other than those who could afford to go elsewhere) to ransom. As you say, if criteria were set correctly and met all should be fine, but we're not really that good at it are we? Have to agree on the questionable teeth and drive of medical unions locally also. I'll admit I don't know a lot about what they do here, but what I do know about the RCN & MNC in terms of supporting those on the front line hasn't impressed me - maybe I've missed the good bits!?
  10. You're bringing me back to my original point. It may be that the transience of senior executives is the norm now elsewhere and so we shouldn't be surprised it is being seen here also, but that still doesn't make it logical. I am not suggesting that the persons who have been appointed in this case are good, bad or indifferent, my original question related to policy and that is still my concern. No matter who is appointed the task before them is set by the politicians (and others) above them. If 'slash and burn' is the overall objective then 'shock and awe' makes sense. It doesn't make sense at all if the mandate is to rebuild trust, invest and consolidate for the long term. The point is that the way in which the role has been shaped (irrespective of who actually fills it) says something about what is going to happen. The separation of policy and delivery - the creation of 'Manx Care' - will certainly make that easier at some future junction.
  11. This part of your post is irrelevant. It's management speak. People at the coal face either don't understand it or simply cannot listen to it because they know it is meaningless. This part of your post is getting close to what I was asking for. I don't understand why you were so reluctant to give it. I have no problem at all with you telling me what you think you achieved, if that's all true then hats off to you. The point I have been trying to get to all along is this - do you think you would have achieved what you did if everyone you were trying to work with knew you were transient? If you had not been here long enough to fully understand the complexity of the system and they knew that ultimately you and or people further up the tree from you were flown in simply to 'slash and burn' or 'shock and awe' and weren't actually invested in the endeavour? Do you believe you would have achieved the same result? The sort of leader I think they should have is someone who is invested in it working. Someone flying in with the brief to 'shock and awe', who's going to be paid whatever the outcome and who's family are not going to suffer the consequences in any case is not invested. Someone who's not afraid to go and see what's actually happening on the front line (and I don't mean scurry through without stopping), look people directly in the eye and deal with the shit they're dealing with including the consequences is far more likely to be invested. So far this isn't happening. Unfortunately nothing in the Michael report gives me hope it's about to happen. Hopefully I am wrong.
  12. Not tangible in the slightest I'm afraid. Maybe you've spent too long away from the front line fella. Do you think, if I hung round the entrance to Nobles and asked some poor nurse or care assistant dragging their puke / shit / blood stained arse out the door after a 12 hour shift, having put up with the worst kind of abuse from both patients and fellow staff, what the word 'transformational' or 'modernising' or 'reconnection' meant in terms of improving their lot I would get a straight answer? Or would I just get laughed at or maybe punched in the face? A tangible improvement is not having your shift turned upside down the minute you walk through the door. A tangible benefit is not being expected to a job on your own that by the book should be done by two people. A tangible improvement would be not having to check up on the work of agency or temp staff who either don't understand the system they are working in or don't care. A tangible improvement would be actually walking out the door when you were supposed to, not two hours later. A tangible improvement would be actually having the breaks you're supposed to - not working straight through without even having time to stop for a cup of tea, and ending up so fucked you can't do anything for the next 24 hours. Those are tangible things which all need addressing in our hospital right now. No offence but what you are giving me is management speak BS which would lead me to the assumption the improvements you are claiming may not have been so great for the people at the coal face? Or have I misinterpreted it?
  13. I never said you made it up. I said I'm skeptical of the merits of 'shock and awe' on the morale of frontline staff who are already about as low as they can get. We have discussed the fact you cannot produce hard data from your examples and I accepted that. You have now again stated you have first hand experience of this methodology and you can 'recall tangible improvements'. I have simply asked you what those 'tangible improvements' were, but for some reason you're refusing to say. I've even given you examples of what I would guess a tangible improvement might be. But still nothing. My point is that I have never seen a 'shock and awe' approach first hand, however thinking about it logically I have concerns over how it might work in this context. In addition to that I do know people who work on the very front line at Nobles and I know that 'shock and awe' has already been tried and failed in some departments - and failed to the point that truly good people leave, shit ones cling on making things worse for all who remain and most importantly patients are left at greater risk as a result of a further weakening of the fabric of the system. If you read recent reports from the coroner on people who should never have died you will see this spelled out clearly for anyone who can read. When things get really serious the mental fitness of and relationship between the people on the front line is as important as the drugs they can give you, the skills they individually have or the technology they can call upon, but it is the one area that is consistently ignored and abused - the 'just do your job' mentality. If the Michaels report had clarified that 'shock and awe' was going to be laid upon the structure of the department, whilst at the same time great care was going to be given to rebuilding the trust of those at the coal face I would be more confident - but it very clearly does not say that, and recent experience would lead us to assume there is a reason. Pound signs rule and people will die. Maybe public don't really care, until it's them or theirs.
  14. Apologies, you are correct, I should have said 'chosen not to'. It doesn't matter where people are from and I never said it did. My concern is that management who are clearly going to have very little chance to fully understand the people they are going to be expected to rebuild, and who are also clearly not committed to staying and being part of that team, will not be as effective as someone who is at the very least going to become fully embedded and part of the solution. I've asked you for examples of it working the way you think it can work and you haven't given any. I don't know anyone who went for the jobs, I don't work in health or even in a team environment at all. I work for myself, usually on my own, but even I can appreciate that this is an area where the understanding and trust these people have in each other is probably one the most important factors for anyone in their care. Sorry Derek, you haven't as far as I can see. If I've missed a post I apologise, please point me in the write direction. I asked for data to demonstrate the improvements made by 'shock and awe reforms', you said there isn't any. I asked for an explanation of what you mean in real practical terms to illustrate how things improved. Simply saying that some people got fired, some people got promoted and things become 'more business like' or developed potential isn't telling me anything like what I was asking for. Doesn't in fact tell me that anything improved for those involved at all. Did they see a reduction in staff sickness? Increases in efficiency due to staff making their own improvements? Reduced internal bullying? Increased staff retention or volunteering? I was asking for real examples and if you were there I assume you would know. I would genuinely like to know.
  15. People are paid to do a job. So it doesn't matter how people are managed or treated? Can you explain how the workforce has become demotivated and disengaged in the first place in that case? Derek cannot give an example from his own recollection of how a 'shock and awe' approach actually works in real terms. Can you give an example of a team of people working well, under extreme pressure, despite no trust in a transient leadership structure? If people are just 'paid to do a job' and that's just how the world works I'm sure there must be plenty of examples of it just working like that.
  • Create New...