Jump to content

Manx Care


Recommended Posts

Having trawled through the regulations @Josemis citing, I've come to the conclusion that this was a perfectly legal and legitimate gathering.

The regulations are found at https://www.tynwald.org.im/links/tls/GC/2021/2021-GC-0070.pdf

Important points of note are:

Part 2 - Prohibition of events and gatherings

4. Under regulation 33B, an event or gathering may take place in a public place or a private place unless it is prohibited by a direction notice made under regulation 33C.
5. For the purposes of regulation 33C all events and gatherings are prohibited subject to the exceptions specified in Part 3 of this direction notice.

Then you look at Part 3 which states:

Employment and Emergency Services

9. A person as an employer or employee may attend a premises not required to close under any other direction notice or in the case of emergency services wherever they are 2 required to attend in fulfilment of their services provided that the conditions in Part 4 are complied with.

Offices have not been legally mandated to close and the official advice by the Government is to work from home where you are able to do so. The provision in Part 4 refers to it being acceptable providing the following conditions are met:

Part 4- Conditions to which the exceptions are subject

27 The conditions referred to in Part 3 are – (a) any restrictions specified in any other direction notice or in the Regulations; and (b) taking appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of transmission of infection with Coronavirus are adhered to, which shall include any protective wear, face coverings, social distancing, or other public health guidance published on www.gov.im.

 

In summary, it's a perfectly legal meeting and no different than queueing at Tesco in as far as the regulations are concerned.

My biggest annoyance with this is that only a matter of weeks ago, the Chief Minister berated employers and offices, even threatening to legally mandate that they close through new legislation (ref https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/we-may-legislate-to-stop-people-going-into-offices-says-cm/). You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Do not tell us all to be responsible and facilitate something that may well have been handled perfectly fine via Teams like the rest of Government is doing in the most part or if these members of management are key, did they really all need to be in physical attendance as appears to be the case?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There must be a phenomenon where a new employee in an organisation rapidly realises, "Bejeezus, what have I done", and walks (or even after a few years). We always assume that a problem has been

Its the obsession with social media that has led them here. HQ and DA frequently refer to it and now these clowns have felt the need to tweet a photo of a meeting. How about they all forget about

Posted Images

Lawful or not it most certainly wasn't within the spirit of any direction notice or regulations. Was it necessary? Not at all. Zoom or Teams could have dealt with it. Why did they do it? Probably to get a landmark photo of the team on the job from the get go...which has now backfired on them.

Dropping the ball in week one by way of a public health related matter doesn't bode well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

Lawful or not it most certainly wasn't within the spirit of any direction notice or regulations. Was it necessary? Not at all. Zoom or Teams could have dealt with it. Why did they do it? Probably to get a landmark photo of the team on the job from the get go...which has now backfired on them.

Dropping the ball in week one by way of a public health related matter doesn't bode well.

Well, you get what you pay for!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 7:46 PM, John Wright said:

Why would it matter? One little bit. I’d rather they used the old. What the letterhead says today, tomorrow, or for the next week, month, or two, is of zero importance.

Still not fixed, I gather. Why can't they just send the urgent letters out now with the old DHSC letterhead instead of stockpiling them?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Still not fixed, I gather. Why can't they just send the urgent letters out now with the old DHSC letterhead instead of stockpiling them?

I’d assumed they would. 
 

simple ps on bottom

”Health & Care Services delivered by Manx Care from 1/4/21”

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jaymann said:

Having trawled through the regulations @Josemis citing, I've come to the conclusion that this was a perfectly legal and legitimate gathering.

The regulations are found at https://www.tynwald.org.im/links/tls/GC/2021/2021-GC-0070.pdf

Important points of note are:

Part 2 - Prohibition of events and gatherings

4. Under regulation 33B, an event or gathering may take place in a public place or a private place unless it is prohibited by a direction notice made under regulation 33C.
5. For the purposes of regulation 33C all events and gatherings are prohibited subject to the exceptions specified in Part 3 of this direction notice.

Then you look at Part 3 which states:

Employment and Emergency Services

9. A person as an employer or employee may attend a premises not required to close under any other direction notice or in the case of emergency services wherever they are 2 required to attend in fulfilment of their services provided that the conditions in Part 4 are complied with.

Offices have not been legally mandated to close and the official advice by the Government is to work from home where you are able to do so. The provision in Part 4 refers to it being acceptable providing the following conditions are met:

Part 4- Conditions to which the exceptions are subject

27 The conditions referred to in Part 3 are – (a) any restrictions specified in any other direction notice or in the Regulations; and (b) taking appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of transmission of infection with Coronavirus are adhered to, which shall include any protective wear, face coverings, social distancing, or other public health guidance published on www.gov.im.

 

In summary, it's a perfectly legal meeting and no different than queueing at Tesco in as far as the regulations are concerned.

My biggest annoyance with this is that only a matter of weeks ago, the Chief Minister berated employers and offices, even threatening to legally mandate that they close through new legislation (ref https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/we-may-legislate-to-stop-people-going-into-offices-says-cm/). You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Do not tell us all to be responsible and facilitate something that may well have been handled perfectly fine via Teams like the rest of Government is doing in the most part or if these members of management are key, did they really all need to be in physical attendance as appears to be the case?

According to this, they are supposedly meeting virtually

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

According to this, they are supposedly meeting virtually

 

11 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Whilst the Board looks forward to welcoming members of the public to its meetings in future, for the time being due to national guidance on social distancing restrictions, board meetings will be held virtually and members of the public will not be able to attend.  

But it wasn’t a board meeting. It was an executive management meeting.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just very wrong though and totally sending out the wrong message. What really is the problem with setting a good example but clearly they are either stupid or just dont give a toss . Surely they must know the public is watching for any indiscretions .  

Edited by Numbnuts
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Its just very wrong though and totally sending out the wrong message. What really is the problem with setting a good example but clearly they are either stupid or just dont give a toss . Surely they must know the public is watching for any indiscretions .  

Tbh, it depends on the message, because it is all a bit cloudy now.  Garden centres open, but only essential trips out; you can gather outdoors with up to 9 family or friends, but you must stay otherwise indoors.  There has been an ad on MR about how infectious the Kent variant is and that it is in the community and we should stay at home, I think I heard it today.

It is a major PR faux pas, but really is it not just indicative of the reality, that it is pretty well suppressed and sensible measures should allow a return to normalish business? 

I keep on coming back to the view that the response has been rooted in being seen to be doing things to avoid criticism rather than actually reacting to the reality.  It's just when you are publicly following one direction but pragmatically following another, stuff like this emerges. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Tbh, it depends on the message, because it is all a bit cloudy now.  Garden centres open, but only essential trips out; you can gather outdoors with up to 9 family or friends, but you must stay otherwise indoors.  There has been an ad on MR about how infectious the Kent variant is and that it is in the community and we should stay at home, I think I heard it today.

It is a major PR faux pas, but really is it not just indicative of the reality, that it is pretty well suppressed and sensible measures should allow a return to normalish business? 

I keep on coming back to the view that the response has been rooted in being seen to be doing things to avoid criticism rather than actually reacting to the reality.  It's just when you are publicly following one direction but pragmatically following another, stuff like this emerges. 

I understand what your saying totally but the whole issue could have been avoided with zero hardship if they just engaged their brain. No ambiguity would have been the sensible and safe way.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Numbnuts said:

I understand what your saying totally but the whole issue could have been avoided with zero hardship if they just engaged their brain. No ambiguity would have been the sensible and safe way.   

Absolutely agree, but brains are rare, let alone engagement. 

  • Like 3
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...