Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

Happier diner...

you still say you don’t see the need for genomic testing...although you also say you can see that it helps- contradictory much? Furthermore, our government can see the benefits as they clearly use and rely on it.

you allegedly couldn’t see the benefit of this form of testing....even though it has been explained multiple times over the last few months to you personally. 

you queried the cost of implementing it...then got told it would be free

you queried the timescale of results, and then got told the IOM lab would be producing results well within 36 hours as opposed to a week or three from the Liverpool lab out government is using. Quicker results is clearly better- even a troll or possession of limited intelligence would find that hard to argue, surely? 

now your latest attempt to denigrate the IOM lab/Dr Glover is to try and play on ‘accreditation’...which isn’t needed.

please explain, if you’re genuinely “not a troll or ass” as you try to claim....what exactly is your problem? You’re clearly ‘going round in circles’ whilst at the same time telling others not to do the same thing. 
 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 31k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2302

  • TheTeapot

    1340

  • Gladys

    1181

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

Just now, manxst said:

Happier diner...

you still say you don’t see the need for genomic testing...although you also say you can see that it helps- contradictory much? Furthermore, our government can see the benefits as they clearly use and rely on it.

you allegedly couldn’t see the benefit of this form of testing....even though it has been explained multiple times over the last few months to you personally. 

you queried the cost of implementing it...then got told it would be free

you queried the timescale of results, and then got told the IOM lab would be producing results well within 36 hours as opposed to a week or three from the Liverpool lab out government is using. Quicker results is clearly better- even a troll or possession of limited intelligence would find that hard to argue, surely? 

now your latest attempt to denigrate the IOM lab/Dr Glover is to try and play on ‘accreditation’...which isn’t needed.

please explain, if you’re genuinely “not a troll or ass” as you try to claim....what exactly is your problem? You’re clearly ‘going round in circles’ whilst at the same time telling others not to do the same thing. 
 

Ha Ha. Not really true.

Need is not the same as help.

I said 3 day or even 36 hours was no good for tracking and tracing. 

I'm not going in circles. You anti government moaners are. Can't let it go can you. It's not going to happen. Surely that can't just be because HQ is sulking. Surely.  Hope not anyway.

If they have no accreditation how would you demonstrate that they are competent to do it. Cos the owner says so? Oh that'll be ok then?

Very few things in life are free. But I did say if I was offered some tests for free I'd  take it so check your facts on that one.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Ha Ha. Not really true.

Need is not the same as help.

I said 3 day or even 36 hours was no good for tracking and tracing. 

I'm not going in circles. You anti government moaners are. Can't let it go can you. It's not going to happen. Surely that can't just be because HQ is sulking. Surely.  Hope not anyway.

If they have no accreditation how would you demonstrate that they are competent to do it. Cos the owner says so? Oh that'll be ok then?

Very few things in life are free. But I did say if I was offered some tests for free I'd  take it so check your facts on that one.

Nah...you’re a troll and only here to try and wind people up. YOU can’t let it go. I’m not going to bother trying to explain yet again. Go and play by yourself in the corner whilst the rest of us debate the matter properly without playing your little games. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, manxst said:

Nah...you’re a troll and only here to try and wind people up. YOU can’t let it go. I’m not going to bother trying to explain yet again. Go and play by yourself in the corner whilst the rest of us debate the matter properly without playing your little games. 

You mean while (some of) the rest of you remain bitter, twisted and frustrated that you don't get your way.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

You mean while (some of) the rest of you remain bitter, twisted and frustrated that you don't get your way.

I'mbored with talking about this now so I'll leave you ( well the anti government whatever they do gang).  To all agree with each other.

My final word. Debate doesn't mean everyone agreeing

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Any accreditation would be better than none. 

Fabulous. Could you point me in the direction of the accreditation of the Liverpool Lab? I know most of the COG-UK guys and not one of their labs has an accreditation to their names...

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There is a bit of confusion over the IOMG ownership; it does not make the SP part of government, it does not make IOMG responsible for the day to day management (they are 'responsible' for appointing a board to manage the business and that's it), it does not prevent government fining SP for a breach of whatever like any other company, or as a shareholder from suing the board for a breach of their fiduciary obligations.  It does not entitle government to have access to all the records of the SP, nor to be privy to the proceedings of the board of the SP and so on.

The SP as a company is distinct and separate to its shareholders. 

 

This could be a big test of its fiduciary obligations. Treasury is the 100% shareholder of the SPC and Treasury officials directly appointed the SPC Officers to its Board (and the non execs too I seem to recall). So straight off it’s a fairly poor defense for the main and only shareholder in a company to say that it didn’t know what it’s appointed Officers we’re doing day to day (although that could well be true). This seems to be primarily about how a company is best able to protect its workers from harm and also best protect its only shareholder by ensuring it complies with all necessary public health directives (directives which if breached clearly have criminal as well as civil penalties attaching to them). Therefore the fact that a worker seems to have managed to have potentially spread the virus to the public is only a small part of the issue for most people I’d say. Mr Ashford seems to think that the board of a state owned company appearing to fail to comply with issued public health directives is not a matter of concern for the police to investigate which seems odd when at the same time being found staying at the house of a friend who is not part of your normal living arrangements against issued public health directives is clearly a matter for the police and the courts under exactly the same legislation.

It will be interesting to see how this unravels. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Yes you could prosecute a company that you own and maybe government will have no option to do that. 

Weren't the DOI prosecuted by DEFA last your for health and safety breaches? 

It is likely that it would be a different department that fines the SP from the one that has shareholder responsibility, if they have breached anything.  Their ownership does not change any of the obligations they already have, or the liability to penalties.  

I am not sure what the issue with ownership is really. 

What is more pertinent is was there a miscommunication, (if that is what it was),  that led to the breach, (if that is what it was),?

Where did it arise? In the communication from IOMG to SP or from SP to its employees?  

We don't know the facts, so best leave the investigation to do its job.  The ownership aspect is a red herring, I think. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gladys said:

Yeah, I never bother with one of them either, judge it by eye!

Yeah, measure once, cut twice! I think that is the dhsc rule???

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is likely that it would be a different department that fines the SP from the one that has shareholder responsibility, if they have breached anything.  Their ownership does not change any of the obligations they already have, or the liability to penalties.  

I am not sure what the issue with ownership is really. 

What is more pertinent is was there a miscommunication, (if that is what it was),  that led to the breach, (if that is what it was),?

Where did it arise? In the communication from IOMG to SP or from SP to its employees?  

We don't know the facts, so best leave the investigation to do its job.  The ownership aspect is a red herring, I think. 

Could be a good test also of the new AG's office of the intending prosecute and defence role they are going to have to deal with it .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CowMan said:

This could be a big test of its fiduciary obligations. Treasury is the 100% shareholder of the SPC and Treasury officials directly appointed the SPC Officers to its Board (and the non execs too I seem to recall). So straight off it’s a fairly poor defense for the main and only shareholder in a company to say that it didn’t know what it’s appointed Officers we’re doing day to day (although that could well be true). This seems to be primarily about how a company is best able to protect its workers from harm and also best protect its only shareholder by ensuring it complies with all necessary public health directives (directives which if breached clearly have criminal as well as civil penalties attaching to them). Therefore the fact that a worker seems to have managed to have potentially spread the virus to the public is only a small part of the issue for most people I’d say. Mr Ashford seems to think that the board of a state owned company appearing to fail to comply with issued public health directives is not a matter of concern for the police to investigate which seems odd when at the same time being found staying at the house of a friend who is not part of your normal living arrangements against issued public health directives is clearly a matter for the police and the courts under exactly the same legislation.

It will be interesting to see how this unravels. 

Several assumptions there - 

1 That IOMG knew, or should have known,   what was happening in the day to day management.  Why would they when they have appointed professionals and experts in the field? Let alone whether they are entitled to such information.  

2 That there were public health directives issued to the SP in clear and unequivocal terms (bearing in mind the exemption they had since last March).

3 That there was a failure to comply to directives by the SP.

4 That it was that failure that led to the breach resulting in positive cases amongst the crew.

5 That the breach is sufficient to warrant a criminal investigation.  

I  do not know the answer to any of those assumptions which is why the investigation should run.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

What is more pertinent is was there a miscommunication, (if that is what it was),  that led to the breach, (if that is what it was),?

The belief of many is that no fine or action will be issued because the issuing of a fine itself suggests wrongness. And if wrongness has happened the public will believe (rightly or wrongly) that the shareholder is ultimately responsible for it. In reality it may well be some poor SPC worker who gets his 14 days in the Jurby Hilton because, as other cases have shown us in the last year, ignorance of the islands quarantine rules has been held as no excuse in the eyes of the Court. I believe that previous legal defenses from isolation breakers that they didn’t understand the significance of the notices given to them fell on deaf ears. If that happens a strike may well ensue.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I do not know the answer to any of those assumptions which is why the investigation should run.

Of course I’m just surprised that it isn’t to be a police investigation as all other cases involving the breaking of quarantine rules and government directions have been a matter for the police and the courts to deal with. As I said above I’m assuming that they dont want anyone ending up inside if that happens as without doubt there would likely be a strike amongst SPC workers concerned about future personal liabilities. But it seems to be that ignorance of the law has been no excuse for others up until now.

it will be interesting. 

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...

×
×
  • Create New...