Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Major Rushen said:

It has been on n Manx Radio News web pages and that IOM gov is preparing a point by point rebuttal.

I think their response is more likely to be heard when they give evidence to the PAC?

I'm sure all this stems from the fact that IoMG were unable to control what information and opinions Dr Glover would make public due to her status?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I think their response is more likely to be heard when they give evidence to the PAC?

I'm sure all this stems from the fact that IoMG were unable to control what information and opinions Dr Glover would make public due to her status?

Given she says that she has engaged lawyers, threatened litigation, sent a letter before action, I’d expect the response to be that it’s sub judice and that means, whilst they disagree with her allegations, they will not be commenting.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zarley said:

well said. I also think they'll continue with the smear campaign. They're circling the wagons as we speak.

Manx Radio has contacted DHSC for a response, and it's understood a point-by-point rebuttal is being drawn up in a formal release. 

I believe that one way or another, Dr Glover will come out on top. The government is going to wish they never pulled this bullshit, even as they dig a deeper hole. We can vote the politicians concerned out; now we just need to find a way to get rid of the civil servants who largely caused this travesty in the first place. 

My late Father told me that "It takes a 'real man'(men) to stand up and simply say.... I am sorry...I/we was/were wrong".

Do you see any in the current IOMG/CS?...No, neither do I.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Got to go back to that 'we'll put out negative press' thing by Steve Doyle. Seriously, what kind of fucking behaviour is that?

It's embarrassing, that's what it is. Probably said it with a wry and knowing smile on his face.

One other thing that needs to be remembered, after the Speaker had thanked her for all her efforts, her commitment to combating the virus and devoting a considerable amount of time (100 hours a week), he mentioned he had a question he "just had to ask" her. It was that if she received a phone call from government in the morning, asking her to go back and continue with her work, after all that had happened, what would her answer be? Following a little hesitation her answer was an emphatic "yes." This is a person who, at a very fundamental level, has our interests at heart.

It brought a lump to my throat and increased my anger tenfold...

Edited by quilp
Tenfold
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

You may be right, but being aware of and limiting your liability is good commercial practice, IMHO  and my observation was in no way a criticism of Dr Glover.  It is a commercial reality. 

Also, I suspect the vaccine issue was about the indemnity from UKG and, again, I believe it was right to get it right.  They just should have got it right quicker.

To be honest I was mainly pointing to a recent tendency of the AG's Office to use liability as the latest 'Health and Safety' or 'GDPR' - as an excuse for not doing something that you ought to do or at least to slow things down as a way of throwing your weight around.   Obviously sorting out liability is important but it's not something that needs to be negotiated from scratch every time and there are legal precedents over what are reasonable terms whatever the wording is (which is what I think Rachel was hinting in the reference to ticking the box on agreements with Apple etc).

Both the AG's Office and the DHSC seem to have mainly operated on the principle of leaving things to the last minute or beyond - sometimes to point of recklessness or damage - and then trying to impose whatever arbitrary solution they want on the ground there is no time to sort things out properly.  It's all incredibly unprofessional, with bullying taking the place of argument, and shows how their idea of public service is that the public are there to serve them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Got to go back to that 'we'll put out negative press' thing by Steve Doyle. Seriously, what kind of fucking behaviour is that?

Apart from anything else, anyone in the Manx media ought to stop and consider just what that says about how government regards them - as willing patsies who will put repeat whatever nonsense is put out unquestioningly.

Rachel was clearly shocked by this encounter, not least because it came from someone who she clearly had worked well with and regarded as a friend.  Of course we don't know from how high up the instructions to bully her this way came.  This is really a toxic organisation.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we don't know is the context of what he said, did he mean it as a threat or as a warning to a friend?

Had he heard it from above? He's only a dept head, would he have the power or desire do such a thing?

Obviously further PAC meetings with such witnesses are in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Both the AG's Office and the DHSC seem to have mainly operated on the principle of leaving things to the last minute or beyond

In recent dealings with AG and DHSC that is EXACTLY how they operate.  In any other set-up it would be gross incompetence and the post holders rewarded appropriately with a P45.

But fear not - 'the Isle of Man (government), freedom to flourish if you are completely useless'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing changes, twenty years ago I ended up arguing a particular case in Tynwald court and a certain MHK as they walked out for recess muttered, 'You've got no fucking chance'. As it happens he was wrong!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nomadic Raptor said:

So can someone explain the rules of this lockdown I missed the part when it was said it was ok to play a football match at the bowl 

Absolutely packed everywhere today, BBQs going & music blasting out . Surprised they allowed 10 from different household to meet outside.

sports allowed outside but maximum 10

Edited by Banker
Link to comment
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...