Jump to content

Ghost Ship

Regulars
  • Posts

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ghost Ship

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Ghost Ship's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

237

Reputation

  1. Does it still have the blue sign saying "Give Way Road Crossing ahead?" Surely it would be much clearer - and safer - to have a blue "Cyclists Dismount" sign rather than Give Way? know-your-traffic-signs.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) It's on p36 in the section "Bus and cycle signs and road markings" I'm not sure there even is a "Give Way Road Crossing Ahead" sign. Is it a Manx idiosyncracy? Edit: I don't know the crossing in question but I do a lot of cycling. I'd suggest the only safe way to cross that road on a bike is to dismount and push it - not just to give way - and that is what the sign should have been advising
  2. That doesn't sound very modern or cutting edge though. Even if it has worked satisfactorily for 130 years...
  3. Hmm... Two on Churchill; one on Heseltine; "We, the Nation: The Conservative Party and the Pursuit of Power" by Andrew Davies; and a (royal?) biography by Sarah Bradford. Pretty standard bed time reading...
  4. But she had been dismissed by 13 August 2021, hadn't she? I may be completely mistaken or may have got my dates wrong, but didn't the Tribunal determine that she had in effect been unfairly dismissed when she wasn't transferred over to Manx Care (or whatever it's called) on 01 April 2021?
  5. That's odd if it's the case. Hasn't the media simply been reporting the Tribunal decision? "DECISION The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that Dr Ranson, having made protected disclosures, was automatically unfairly dismissed and suffered detriments in consequence. She was also unfairly dismissed irrespective of the protected disclosures."
  6. The Tribunal certainly appeared to be more critical of her conduct than of Ashford's. And there was the weird bit when she was apparently giving testimony and referred to some messages she had on her 'phone that had not previously been disclosed to the Tribunal. That seemed very odd.
  7. Mrs Perry should contact somebody like* The Guardian and ask them to cover this. Haven't they already done an article on the Dr Ranson article? * Or Private Eye.
  8. To be fair and impartial, I don't think he's quoted as "literally" saying it in the Tribunal decision. Has he said it elsewhere?
  9. I agree. In the context that I presume @Bandits was using the word, I think it's acceptable and understandable. The danger in questioning it's use is that doing so tends to divert attention away from the substantive behaviour under scrutiny and focuses it instead on the person who uses the word "mental" without - I hope - intending to cause offence or attach any stigma to those who suffer from mental illness. (Not that I'm suggesting @jackwhite is trying to divert attention away from anyone. I presume they're just uncomfortable with the wordl "mental" apparently being used as a label).
  10. I think it depends on the context. I've heard the Director of Nursing of a NHS mental health trust describe somebody as "completely mental". (I don't think Bandits was using it derogatorily in the post you quote. I think he was trying to illustrate the questionable behaviour of senior DHSC management)
  11. "... the gauge was too tight in this particular spot... " So did they choose this curved section of track because they knew there was a spot on it where the gauge was too tight, or are there potentially innumerable spots along the newly laid track that are too tight that they don't know about?
  12. I don't know why he would do that, but if you are suggesting that he could not have done it because he would have had no good reason to do so, doesn't the Tribunal decision tend to contradict that point of view? For example, talking about the alleged protected disclosure to minister Allinson that she (Dr Ranson) was concerned that Mrs Magson had failed to pass crucial medical information on to CoMin: "276. The Tribunal was satisfied that Miss Magson would have been displeased had Dr Ranson gone direct to Minister Ashford on the March (or any) issues. Equally the Tribunal was satisfied that Minister Ashford did not want or expect to hear directly from Dr Ranson (or from anyone other than through the command structure). [My bold] 277. Dr Allinson took the opportunity to speak to the Minister after a CoMin meeting. His evidence was that Minister Ashford made clear that he would not hear from Dr Ranson direct. He would only hear from Miss Magson, coming through the command structure. [My bold.] Minister Ashford, in his evidence to the Tribunal, did not deny that there could have been a brief discussion like this but he had no recollection of it. He said that he would not challenge whatever Minister Allinson had said of the discussion. Significantly though, he added that he would not have divulged a Minister-to-Minister discussion to Miss Magson." That seems quite conclusive to me that the Tribunal considered on the evidence before it that the minister understood the structure and did not want to hear directly from Dr Ranson. He had an opportunity to challenge the evidence from minister Allinson, but chose not to do so.
  13. I'm not sure what @Roger Mexico means exactly by "he managed to trip himself up often enough" but there are certainly parts of the tribunal decision that aren't particularly complimentary about some of the minister's actions. For example, if you look at the section about the Serious Incident Report (para 445 et seq) the tribunal appears to be somewhat critical of the minister's public mis-attribution of blame for the delay in producing the report to Dr Ranson rather than to Mrs Magson: "458. It was noteworthy to the Tribunal that the Minister considered that “realistic indications” needed to be given. The unrealistic indications had been down to Miss Magson. She had raised the Minister’s expectation - not Dr Ranson. Yet somehow, as his written evidence confirmed, the Minister then considered that he had not been misled by Miss Magson and that the delays had been down to Dr Ranson. [My bold] 459. The Tribunal asked itself on what basis the Minister could blame Dr Ranson publicly on 9th October when she had never given any timescale? On his own evidence, the Minister knew that it was Miss Magson who had raised his expectation about informing those affected about the outcome. [My bold] Dr Ranson’s coherent and explanatory email at pages 2506 – 2507 made clear that the SI process informs the decision as to communications with those affected." I've neither seen nor heard the evidence relied on by the tribunal in making these comments, but they certainly seem to be suggesting - in this instance at least - that perhaps the minister had not dealt fairly with Dr Ranson. It's not clear to me that these actions can simply be explained away by saying that the minister didn't understand how the department worked or how it was structured? (If that is what you are suggesting).
  14. The problem I have with that link is that the article has what I would describe as a misleading (whether inadvertant or through simple laziness) title - "Ranson case will get second hearing". When I read that my immediate thought was: "Oh! Hang on - is the DHSC actually appealing the tribunal's decision?" Of course they aren't. (Or at least not yet). On reading the article I realised they were simply repeating old news from last week that the tribunal would be carrying out a separate investigation into the conduct of the DHSC and Mrs Magson in respect of disclosure. I think that describing that investigation as a second hearing in the Ranson case (ie the suggestion that the case might be heard again) is inaccurate and misleading.
×
×
  • Create New...