hampsterkahn

Nope, still don’t get it - I get lost after the three legs sleeping beauty problem ? I ‘m just thick and live in a different world.

This is probably a very naive question, but a genuine one : can you explain the reference to Manx flag in all of this?

This is a very confusing topic for me- 1.I just don’t see where the Manx flag- or any flag,comes into this? 2.The public toilet issue - I use one very infrequently.I find then smelly and rather unpleasant- but useful if needed for the sole purpose of peeing and pooing. Thankfully, I have never been “approached” by anyone in a toilet.The prospect would be a further deterrent for me using one, even to the point risking of bladder complications. A fact of life is that women / female sex (or whatever term is currently in use) do, by dint of anatomy and physiology etc.m do have more frequent need of such facilities.Unless they have trained bladder and other muscular tone to levels to produce an unusual trajectory, they sit down - rather than pee against the porcelain whilst standing.This means removal of more clothing and increases the feeling of vulnerabilty. They should be be able to use these facilities confidently without even the briefest second thought about it -and not feel in any way uncomfortable. As father, I would have been very concerned to wait whilst my young daughter entered a public toilet ( where as a “male” I would not have been be permitted to enter) to be followed in by someone who - for whatever reason, claimed they had a perfect right to be there, but by their appearance and demeanor would have very probably caused her distress and - and fear. Men/ young boys; women/ young girls have a basic right to the access the appropriately designated facilities without feeling in any way intimidated or uncomfortable.

It does have some relevance. When people were being assessed for this post, here it would seem was a candidate who was apparently very talented and valued by her employers. Such was their generousity, they readily agreed to lose such a vital member of their organisation for 3 days a week to for her to work some where else. “ somewhere else’”, being here.It didn’t even mean going “somewhere else but instead staying at home and and delivering her talent in the form of latter day colonial service by modern technology.

It is interesting that in the interview he says that to get the “top notch candidate” ,.. their might need to be “ compromises in working conditions” He has perhaps revealed the approach taken in candidate selection. It would be interesting when faced with similarly qualified candidates how the “Top Notchers” were selected, as there is now a proven and consistent record of disastrous failure using this process. I suspect these candidates were impressive by apparent confidence and self promotion backed by extravagant claims of ability from a facade of personal dynamism. It also raises the depressing thought that rejected were some very able people who may not have dazzled with charisma, but would have just quietly and efficiently excelled - doing what we need of them - doing their bloody job..

One of the characteristics of respected professionals, world experts and those with the most extensive and detailed knowledge and experience in their profession will sometimes readily respond to a question with, a straight forward, honest , “ I don’t know” if it is outside their area of experience or the facts aren’t to hand, or it is a topic they have yet to focus their thoughts on. A trait which does not seem to burden Mr Ashford.

It is well known that DHSC has a recruitment and retainment problem for medical staff. It is not new.It was a problem before the Dr Ranson tribunal. The coverage of the disgraceful scandal in various publications read by those in interested in / or employed in health care has been extensive and withering. Looking at just one publication - the BMJ, the British Medical Journal,it ran a main article soon afterwards and in the last week a supplement that comes with it ran another: A very attractive picture of Douglas harbour, is spread across the top of a double page .Unfortunately, reading the article under it could not be more unattractive for anyone even considering working in the Island’s Health Care System. Such an exposé means that the Island’s Health Service has a negative advertising campaign all of it’s own making. it is likely to be a successful one.

In 1912 or thereabouts many towns had tram systems that operated in the middle of the road.It wasn’t ideal then and worse as traffic density increased and motor vehicles became more commonplace. It seems extraordinary, then to ignore the obvious that a tramway in the middle of any 21st century road presents hazards. Having decided to retain the tramway and totally rebuild the promenade it is difficult to understand why the opportunity to relocate the tramway to somewhere safer and more convenient - )either side or on the prom but any where other than the middle of a busy road) was not taken. If and when the trams run again it would seem we have managed to retain all the disadvantages of an Edwardian traffic system and a 21 st century one by unimaginatively cobbling the two together.

A wonderful Manx urban myth surrounds the vaccination hubs. It seemed that on seeing people in UK having injections in toilets and broom cupboards and comparing our more comfortable arrangements we felt let down as we felt entitled to a similar level of misery. Nearly all of us have passed through one of the hubs, so we are all experts, but to me they really were not/ are not lavish and certainly not as response to a national emergency: 1. part of the airport foyer cordoned off with 4x2 s , plaster board partitions- Ah! what about the famous, fantastically expensive skirting boards of folklore ( how much is wooden skirting per metre?) 2. A disused supermarket.Windowless with effectively no heating for the first few months and little afterwards. Chairs? .. Chairs ? don’t talk to me about chairs - I have heard (from someone who knows) they even bought a whole box of new light bulbs…- - A whole box.. New ones..Mad.

As a species, politicians, I suspect have unusual levels of self-belief, coupled with a need for attention. This tends to suppress self- doubt, and with it the nagging thought that in reality they are bit, “come-day, go-day”-ish.. That said, what is so wrong with wearing a suit -tie, cravat, waistcoat if you so choose? -Even if you are not due in court- or attending a funeral or wedding ? It is so very unusual now, that only aged, style refuges from the 1960’s and 70’s could possibly regard such attire as being any way “ conventional”.

We seem to have veered off on a diversion. Diversions here are frequent - onto rumbly dirt track road - with a lot of grass growing in the middle. This time, it involves staffing on a floor at a newsagent. To skid, steer and bump us back onto the information and discussion highway… Who is it we want/need? Is this Private or Govt.sector? Are incentives to be offered? For Govt.: Departments have a consistent, but sadly catastrophic record regarding senior official appointments, especially with candidates from, “ off island”. Perhaps a case for “Lay” representation? Private sector: Their boldness, unlike Gov., carries more of a personal risk. On reflection, not all employment solutions come from any sort of “planning’ - the great “Airship” venture , proclaimed in robust terms by politicos at the time, ended badly. However, many of the skilled workforce ,who had relocated here with their families became employed in other sectors, sometimes in very different roles, and very quickly became part of the Island community.

Dr Ranson’s case was always very sound. Despite that, it could have been choked by the heavy, smothering hands of the system in the “usual way”. The “Usual way “ is asphyxiation and attrition- to smother and wear people down, and “make smoke “- just look at that appalling, devious, rambling drivel of a denial letter from Ashford to PAC. The catastrophic failure of this system was laid bare by this tribunal. It shook ‘ “The Department” to the core. Good. Dr Ranson obviously did have great personal resolve and also access to excellent legal representation. it was not just down to these strengths that this case was won, it was more to the dreadful and serious weaknesses of the system that were exposed as being seriously flawed and humiliatingly idefensible.

Ah, if only more of us shared that degree of insight.

The fuming indignation expressed by one group of road users ( fill in tribal name ) against others ( fill opposing name) probably has little to do with their respective modes of transportation, but more to do with personality traits and and in many situations… traffic density. One has to bear in mind that quite a lot of the people you encounter anywhere have, let us say,some significant degree of “social difficulty”in relating to others. Add the “anonymity cloak” of a car, or the cultural clothing of cyclists and bikers which serves a similar function, and there can be problems. It is perhaps significant that many cars have tinted windows and cyclists, dark glasses and bikers faces are obscured by helmet design - or choice. People who would normally squirm with embarrassment and race to profusely aplogise after miss-stepping someone, or colliding in the street or in a supermarket trolley clash are as, road users now self- righteous, combative - and even sometimes can be dangerously vengeful.

Girls “ deliberately” getting pregnant with the sole ,focussed aim of attaining a council house ? Is that really- or was it ever, a significant problem or more just casual prejudiced social sneer? “ Hard working “. - “ Hard Working families” -These are the chosen ones. This all sound like echoes from discussions around 2004 - very “Tony Blair-ish” What do we think is the acceptable way of dealing with those who are not, for what ever reason, judged to be ..”Not Hard- working” or , perish the thought, “lazy”?

Agree. That is why as a society we must always have careful scrutiny over those in positions of authority and power-The old , “ Quis cusdodiet ipsos custodes?” - who guards the guards?

Society gets the criminals it deserves. A police force also reflects society, but we should not just get the police we deserve, we should be able to have the force we insist on. If you have been around for a while, you will have learnt that individuals who are “the Police”are very different.There is not a “generic” policeman/woman any more than other profession. They range from the extraordinarily decent and humane, who from my experience, are by far the majority, through the reasonably fair , to the ponderous and prejudiced, on to an very small, but evil minority. - A mirror of us all, really.

Asked what have been the big advances in Medicine in the last quarter of a century and people will list such things as medical imaging such as MRI, immunotherapy, chemotherapy etc. Less “Gee-whizz “ and headline-grabbing,there is the growth of the Hospice Movement. It has had a huge impact on the quality of end-of-life care for hundreds of thousands of people. It could be argued that the Hospice movement, beginning from its earliest stages with Dame Cecily Saunders in London as it has gathered momentum to address the very individual issues of terminal illness and symptom management it has rather overtaken many of the arguments surrounding euthanasia. We should be wary about giving powers - to anyone, to end human life and particularly wary about legislating for it. Within human memory, we have seen what can happen when a highly sophisticated society introduces measures that were “very reasonable” and no more than “common sense” to end the needless suffering of humans.Within a decade its remit as we know, had expanded. It could not happen here, we reassure ourselves, but in our own society we have already seen casual abuse in the name of the Liverpool Care Pathway and more recently DNACPR certifications. The emphasis in terminal illness care should be one of a holistic approach for the individual based on symptom control sufficient to improve, not just to maintain the quality of life remaining, but to ease the approach to a calm and dignified death even if as a result, that treatment shortens that individual’s quantity of life very considerably.

There has been a remarkable silence regarding Dr H Ewart who featured so prominently and so very unfavourably in the tribunal with regard to the facts that emerged, the evidence she rather tardily provided, and the manner in which she delivered it. Attracting quite scathing comments from the tribunal chairman and achieving the unusual distinction for a witness account to be deemed so unhelpful that both legal teams agreed to strike out quite a few paragraphs amounts to a severe condemnation for any professional. It would be perhaps surprising if there had not been a GMC referral. Perhaps this may affect when announcements are made but not alter what would seem to be the inevitable

The attitude of the Gov towards the public during the Pandemic as shown by the CM,CEO ,when available , and particularly the chief medical officer was one of talking down to rather silly children. This became toe -curlingly cringe-making when the same approach was taken regarding the various denials - the “letter”, the Steam Packet incident etc. Even Mr Ashford’s citation re his gong was something along the lines of making complicated messages simple to the public, suggesting that the nomination emanated from a source not too distant in a system with a similar mind-set. But it was this simple, silly “public” who made the whole thing work, not these media stars I don’t think DA will include any recognition of - us - or an an apology for letting us down and certainly no insight or apology to Dr Ranson or anyone else.

Take your point re that Gladys, thanks I’ll re-phrase.

The reasons why we didn’t come a cropper in the Pandemic has very little to do with the actions of the CM, the health minister, the CEO , the Chief Medical officer and the toadying of the next CEO. Too much of their focus was clearly on them selves and building a vindictive case against Dr Ranson.Shockingly,from the tribunals conclusions it has raised suspicion that evidence produced by the Govt.was at least open to question regarding its authenticity. The reasons we did pretty well were partially geographical - and having a lot of very sound, low profile people who quietly and diligently just got on with their jobs in medicine, nursing, care homes and yes, some very hard working and dedicated civil servants.People who most people could not put a name to. This is the way the vaccination programme was quietly and efficiently roled out and has saved us many lives and serious illness. Amongst these folk whose just “did their bloody job” were the Steam Packet who were very unfairly targeted with dubious evidence from the usual culprits. The reason why many people are angry with the recent expose is that we are all aware a lot of people just” got on with the bloody job” and by and large we were a public that was not only willingly compliant as we accepted fairly unpleasant and sometimes draconian rules - we abided by them.We helped deal with the Pandemic -we did. We don’t need a new a new political system - and certainly not some sort of “benign” dictatorship,if there is such a thing.We already have a very good system - we just have to recognise the when things are wrong - and take action to maintain it.

Dr Ranson’s tribunal victory raises some very disturbing “What if ?”s” 1.What if - Dr Ranson had not had the professional experience of 26 years as a general practitioner , several years working for the GMC and then for the QCC - to give her the confidence and considerable personal courage to stand her ground? 2.What if - she had not been able to access expert legal advice because of support from the BMA and the expertise of the one of the Medical Defence Societies. 3.What if -she had been ground-down by the concerted, dishonest and manipulative actions of her CEO, the chief medical officer who it shows bullied, denigrated and tried to “gaslight “ her and the senior civil servants whose actions have been laid bare by the tribunal. 4. What if it had been someone who did not have the professional background or the resilience to persist with her case or could not access the support of organisations that had such huge legal clout ? What if ? Well,I think we know. 1.We would not have heard about it. 2.She would have suffered the same fate as others - chewed up and spat out by the flawed system. And .. 3.We would not have heard about the forging of evidence by government officials which still needs further investigation. And.. 4.We would not have seen how the health minister gave evasive testimony as QC Segal illustrated - a general denial of any involvement until such denial was untenable. This is a situation that is not just “ uncomfortable”as the CM described it it the biggest expose of what can most charitably be called government “failings” in decades. -and because of the nature of it being a tribunal, there is no where to hide.

Me too.

The car parking was simpler. Is that “Brother Fisher” crossing the quay?