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

Nobles Hospital

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Where did I accuse ND of trolling? I think I said a predictable response. No specific mention of trolling as I recall.  

That's why I put "(saying something in opposition to get a reaction)" as an explanation,  You said "If I said the sky is blue I would imagine that would be followed up by a post from you announcing  that I’m clearly an idiot and it is in fact purple" which would be an example of someone trolling someone.  The exact word doesn't have to be used for it to be an accusation, just as an accusation of "paranoia" is still an example of calling someone 'mental' even though the word wasn't used.

Share this post


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

That's why I put "(saying something in opposition to get a reaction)" as an explanation,  You said "If I said the sky is blue I would imagine that would be followed up by a post from you announcing  that I’m clearly an idiot and it is in fact purple" which would be an example of someone trolling someone.  The exact word doesn't have to be used for it to be an accusation, just as an accusation of "paranoia" is still an example of calling someone 'mental' even though the word wasn't used.

With total respect I think you’re clutching at straws there. It never ceases to amaze me the posters who come to the defense of certain posters on here who are active agitators. Staying on the hospital theme I’d observe that these threads do really seem to drag out the worse in a certain core group of posters. You do genuinely wonder if this forum is an anonymous extension of the DHSC intranet. 

Share this post


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

You accused Neil Down of trolling (saying something in opposition to get a reaction), Neil Down accused you of being mental (paranoia).   The '/'s used indicate that every type of accusation does not have to be present on every occasion.

Hang on, he never accused me of "trolling" at all nor did I imply he was mental ffs. Seems to me that there are a fair few posters on here who jump on that word at any given opportunity

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

these threads do really seem to drag out the worse in a certain core group of posters. You do genuinely wonder if this forum is an

All our thread bring out the worst and (sometimes) the best in all of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, VixenTheViking said:

Any obvious reason why non-libelous, freedom of speech posts get removed. Is freedom of speech being eroded, and censored.

Simply because what you allege happened hasn’t been adjudicated on, so there’s no definitive fact or truth. What you posted was seriously potentially defamatory. We don’t have time and resources to investigate. Your allegation is no guarantee of truth.

You could reword, and link to anything legitimate that supports your contention he was referred to the GMC, and GMC took no action and referred it back to his employers. Those are facts and you may be able to say they are true. But you can’t say if the allegation is true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s greatly to be regretted that this thread has lost its earlier focus on the quite incredible shenanigans of how our abject government is twisting and turning with incompetence over the Alice in Wonderland (non)-arrangements of bringing about the great Michaels’ transformation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is anyone even mildly surprised that it's turning into another Lisvane "outcome"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

You could reword, and link to anything legitimate that supports your contention he was referred to the GMC, and GMC took no action and referred it back to his employers. Those are facts and you may be able to say they are true. But you can’t say if the allegation is true or not.

The trouble is that GMC rulings only remain on their website for 12 months after the ruling is issued.  If any sanctions are issued, those will still be available on the particular doctor's record, but not otherwise.  So if in cases like that one, there's no way you can find out what the situation is, no way of proving that a case wasn't brought without presumably looking up hardcopy files at GMC HQ.

It's a rather odd policy because, say, a juicy Daily Mail story reporting lots of allegations against a doctor could remain there for ever, being easily found, while the legal finding that there was nothing in them vanishes off the internet after a year.  Even when action has been taken against a doctor the rationale won't be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The trouble is that GMC rulings only remain on their website for 12 months after the ruling is issued.  If any sanctions are issued, those will still be available on the particular doctor's record, but not otherwise.  So if in cases like that one, there's no way you can find out what the situation is, no way of proving that a case wasn't brought without presumably looking up hardcopy files at GMC HQ.

It's a rather odd policy because, say, a juicy Daily Mail story reporting lots of allegations against a doctor could remain there for ever, being easily found, while the legal finding that there was nothing in them vanishes off the internet after a year.  Even when action has been taken against a doctor the rationale won't be available.

Hence why MF has to err on side of caution

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P.K. said:

How is anyone even mildly surprised that it's turning into another Lisvane "outcome"....

Lisvane was a worthless report by a wimp who admits he was bullied by Bercow. It had no value. He didn’t understand anything about Manx politics. It was a disaster and was never going to be implemented.

Michaels, the jury is out. But they’re doing it. Just seem to be messing up the implementation. 
 

Two very different outcomes.

Share this post


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

Hence why MF has to err on side of caution

Oh quite.  I was just pointing out how difficult the GMC's policy on publication makes it to verify what went on.  It also applies in cases such Peter Duffy when it means you can't see that there is a pattern of dismissed malicious or trivial complaints (though there don't seem to have been any in the past year).

17 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Lisvane was a worthless report by a wimp who admits he was bullied by Bercow. It had no value. He didn’t understand anything about Manx politics. It was a disaster and was never going to be implemented.

Michaels, the jury is out. But they’re doing it. Just seem to be messing up the implementation. 

The more I look at Michael's report, the more it looks like an unworkable mess, unsuitable for anywhere, but especially somewhere as small as the Isle of Man.  It was sold to the politicians promising them freedom from responsibility, but it won't even do that - just create more pointless bureaucracy.  

(I'm rather cynical about Lisvane's claims of bullying.  They do rather sound like "How dare this horrible jumped-up pleb tell me what to do, just because he's my boss").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post was an explanational theory, in response to a previous question as to why the 2nd part of the hearing was still not undertaken by GMC.

Rest of post removed by moderators

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Lisvane was a worthless report by a wimp who admits he was bullied by Bercow. It had no value. He didn’t understand anything about Manx politics. It was a disaster and was never going to be implemented.

Michaels, the jury is out. But they’re doing it. Just seem to be messing up the implementation. 
 

Two very different outcomes.

More likely Lisvane simply couldn't believe anything about Manx so-called politics.

I am aware of the issues around Bercow and Lisvane but as you have pointed out earlier in this thread unproven means inadmissible.

But if Lisvane was such a pussy who pinged him for this and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Vixen the Viking appears from nowhere to stir the pudding because everyone is bored of her mate swinging the hatchet.   Give it a rest forums are no place for personal vendettas.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...