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

Cut & paste

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said:

With his vulgar language and obsession with sexual acts?

It was only the one particular sexual act he was concerned with and that was the one that meant his Sharon couldn't sit down for a week.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, woolley said:

I liked this bit:

"Chair of the Public Accounts Committee Juan Watterson believes naming Michaela Morris as the author wasn't the correct thing to do."

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/health-vision-has-copied-wigan-says-minister/

Well you can't fault the impeccable logic because the author is someone in Wigan but, in effect, this is the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee saying that details of the who, what, why of this debacle should be suppressed and that isn't the correct thing to do either.

I don't think that is what Watterson is saying in this case.  The Hansard is now available and this relates to something Morris said in lines 834 onwards:

Quote

Q567. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you very much. Who was actually involved – I know you were leading it – in putting it together and how?

Mrs Morris: Well, I was the main author of the document but there was one particular chapter that has been written from our third sector partners, so that was a combination of the Chief Executive of the Hospice, the Chief Executive of Crossroads and David Gawne, in his many guises across the third sector. So that chapter was specifically written by them and contributed to it.

The various iterations of the draft, as they were being developed, were shared at Department meetings a couple of times so directors certainly had more access to it and all of the Department members had access to it in its formulation. And changes were made as a result of comments etc. that were given to me

So she was clearly claiming it was nearly  all her own work[1], when it very clearly wasn't.  Of course the little word 'Wigan' hadn't actually appeared at this stage and I suspect the Committee were setting her up for pointing out that "Over half of this document is a copy, cut and paste, word for word what Wigan produced in 2014" later in the session (see p 30 on).  So Watterson isn't saying that her 'authorship' should have been hidden, but that she shouldn't have claimed that she wrote most of it when she hadn't. 

But the whole PAC session is deeply depressing with both Couch and Morris clearly unable to do anything but spout jargon and having no more idea of what is going on and no proposals to fix things except by calling more meetings or commissioning more reports.

 

[1]  Someone at Manx Radio (young Gawne?) did a good job in picking up this story straight away, writing it up comprehensively, and not waiting for Hansard to appear, though the recording was available.  It did mean the piece contains one mistake in implying that David Gawne was CE of Crossroads Care (it's Jackie Betteridge).

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Roger. I had not read the Hansard but had relied on the Manx Radio report. I now see the obvious ambiguity in the sentence as quoted and, accordingly, I withdraw the remark saying that the suppression of information was being advocated by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and edited accordingly. He was simply stating the obvious; i.e. given the facts she should not be recorded as the author. Perhaps MR could be asked to amend the clumsy sentence, wherever it came from, because it will certainly be construed by others in the manner it appeared to me.

Something like: "Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Juan Watterson, says crediting Michaela Morris as the originator of the work was factually wrong."  would be better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

So she was clearly claiming it was nearly  all her own work[1], when it very clearly wasn't.  Of course the little word 'Wigan' hadn't actually appeared at this stage and I suspect the Committee were setting her up for pointing out that "Over half of this document is a copy, cut and paste, word for word what Wigan produced in 2014" later in the session (see p 30 on).  So Watterson isn't saying that her 'authorship' should have been hidden, but that she shouldn't have claimed that she wrote most of it when she hadn't. 

Was she originally from Wigan do we know? Or was she asked to develop policy like Wigan’s and went the whole hog and just secretly copied it? 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with politicians and metaphors?

Mr Ashford on Manx Radio :

“I think you have knocked the nail on the point, there..”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Was she originally from Wigan do we know? Or was she asked to develop policy like Wigan’s and went the whole hog and just secretly copied it? 

The latter I think.  From her Linkedin she appears to have gone to school in Salisbury (though it was a private school, so she could have lived a way away) and most of her subsequent work was in the South of England.  Never in the same post for long before she came here.

As to Wigan, it seems to be being put forward as some sort of paradigm withing the integrated care field, though that could just mean that they produce the snazziest-looking documents.  As usual there seems no willingness to look at a variety of different authorities or look anywhere outside England.  Robertshaw kept on comparing us with systems on mainland Europe and it made Couch sound even more clueless.  

And it's all wrapped in the usual language of aspiration and 'vision', never anything concrete or achieved.  Certainly nothing about outcomes or how well things worked.  As Watterson said (lines 1454 on): 

Quote

I mean, just to give you the credit for an area that has been changed from the Wigan document: the Wigan document has in its section 10 ‘Outcomes’, and what they intend to achieve roughly by what. We have removed that and put in a whole page about what an outcome is, so our vision does not even have outcomes in it that we are going to hold ourselves to. I mean, that waters it down somewhat. We have not even got our aims and ambitions for what we are trying to achieve, whereas at least Wigan did try in a somewhat awkward way to put something in.

Of course the reality of all this is that they have been busy producing reports while Couch has been cutting back on the things that actually do support people in the community, such as meals on wheels.  Similarly there is much talk about working with voluntary organisations, while they are actually taking more and more in house - even stuff like adoption and fostering that has always been done by charities.  But then these are the sort of people who nationalised the hospital sweet shop.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't show the DHSC in a good light at all: says Anwar Hussain from Peel ;)

Edited by MrPB
Spells
  • Like 3
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Robertshaw kept on comparing us with systems on mainland Europe and it made Couch sound even more clueless.  

Of course the reality of all this is that they have been busy producing reports while Couch has been cutting back on the things that actually do support people in the community...

Couch sounded informed, articulate and convincing when in the Treasury. Nothing could be further from the truth now. Did anyone hear his mewling on Manx Radio this evening when they followed up his recent mauling at the PAC. He was challenged by Jane Poole-Wilson in connection with a series of highly critical reports, particularly in respect of communication within Nobles. His reaction was pathetic - “I can’t be expected to know what everyone is doing...”. Not only did he sound self-pitying and avoiding his responsibilities, but it was a comment that singularly failed to address the questions put to him. 

I wonder if the skids might be under Mr. Couch shortly.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

...she (Morris) was clearly claiming it was nearly  all her own work[1], when it very clearly wasn't.  Of course the little word 'Wigan' hadn't actually appeared at this stage and I suspect the Committee were setting her up for pointing out that "Over half of this document is a copy, cut and paste, word for word what Wigan produced in 2014" later in the session (see p 30 on).  So Watterson isn't saying that her 'authorship' should have been hidden, but that she shouldn't have claimed that she wrote most of it when she hadn't.

You’re bang on the money there Rog. So how do we feel about the no. 2 at DHSC seemingly willfully setting out to deceive the public at large generally and the PAC specifically?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points offered by Hooper in this interview. Certainly makes Ashford look like a clown.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Some good points offered by Hooper in this interview. Certainly makes Ashford look like a clown.”  Ashford may have a problem to deal with but Hooper is a Grandstander of the highest echelon.  I don’t remember him even blinking when Mrs Beecroft and the Liberal Vannin Party unilaterally cut Meals on Wheels. In fact, he was remarkably silent during the thankfully relatively short time the Lib Vans had their hands on our health department.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, interestedman said:

“Some good points offered by Hooper in this interview. Certainly makes Ashford look like a clown.”  Ashford may have a problem to deal with but Hooper is a Grandstander of the highest echelon.  I don’t remember him even blinking when Mrs Beecroft and the Liberal Vannin Party unilaterally cut Meals on Wheels. In fact, he was remarkably silent during the thankfully relatively short time the Lib Vans had their hands on our health department.

All that you say is completely true and it’s called politics. These people aren’t balanced, fair and reasonable, they’re politicians. A decent interviewer would have challenged Hooper in precisely the terms you set out. Beecroft was just as terminally useless as you suggest. None of which negates the fact that Hooper, who almost certainly is grandstanding, has very effectively pinned Ashford, Couch and Morris due to their own stupidity.

For what it’s worth, as I’ve said before, if Hooper wants to elevate his credibility further he should ditch Lib Van like a used condom.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, interestedman said:

“Some good points offered by Hooper in this interview. Certainly makes Ashford look like a clown.”  Ashford may have a problem to deal with but Hooper is a Grandstander of the highest echelon.  I don’t remember him even blinking when Mrs Beecroft and the Liberal Vannin Party unilaterally cut Meals on Wheels. In fact, he was remarkably silent during the thankfully relatively short time the Lib Vans had their hands on our health department.

He's not alone in that regard.

Meals on Wheels is still available and being delivered, except that the delivery is not being done by a charity receving 150k/pa from the taxpayer but with the best part of 4 million sitting in the bank.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×