Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If by this  you mean “hush money”. Firstly I don’t believe the Government has any reason to hush you.They seem confident that they can rebut the allegations made  and it’s all in the public domain.

However in the very unlikely event they try to “bribe” you into not prosecuting your case, then I would urge you not to accept however benevolently you would use the funds. That would infer you are “ guilty” , which you maintain you are not and would adversely affect your professional  career.  We may well need you in the future.

Anyway it’s not going to happen.

From my point of view, if the DHSC wanted to keep me quiet with cash (i.e. gagging order, compensation for libel, I win a civil case in the future where the DHSC is shown to be in the wrong) then that money is not mine and should be used for good, not personal gain. Argue against that all you want. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ouch, this thread is back. Not unexpected I suppose. 

Have you never heard the term whistle-blowing? Dr G. tried every avenue and was well aware of what was at risk on her island. She isn't doing this for publicity, she's been offered far better gigs tha

With respect, you are. Without @rachomics on island PCR testing for covid would not have happened when it did, if at all. Of course, Rizwan Khan and Steve Doyle were vital too - sorry don’t know Dr Sh

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If by this  you mean “hush money”. Firstly I don’t believe the Government has any reason to hush you.They seem confident that they can rebut the allegations made  and it’s all in the public domain.

However in the very unlikely event they try to “bribe” you into not prosecuting your case, then I would urge you not to accept however benevolently you would use the funds. That would infer you are “ guilty” , which you maintain you are not and would adversely affect your professional  career.  We may well need you in the future.

Anyway it’s not going to happen.

That is some leap of logic. What is your agenda?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other questions to throw into the mix:

DA referred to advisers in the interview today.  Who are they, what are their qualifications, how were they selected and what is the basis on which their advice has been retained? 

What are the protocols applying to advice and how does the arrangements with those advisers meet those protocols?

Do they make up the advisory panel promised last year, then dismissed as not needed?

All anyone is asking for is transparency in light of the implications for the health, wealth and welfare of the people of this island. 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rachomics said:

but the DHSC didn't even bother to ask how much, they just waited for us to issue the removal notice instead. 

Well that seems to be a reoccurring theme, no different to them saying genomics is only useful to identify the strain, despite you offering numerous times to prove otherwise for free.

 

 

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

Well that seems to be a reoccurring theme, no different to them saying genomics is only useful to identify the strain, despite you offering numerous times to prove otherwise for free.

 

 

Bottomless pit when its not your money as they prove everyday . 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

However in the very unlikely event they try to “bribe” you into not prosecuting your case, then I would urge you not to accept however benevolently you would use the funds. That would infer you are “ guilty” , which you maintain you are not and would adversely affect your professional  career.  We may well need you in the future.

Wow, for the first time ever I’ve found myself agreeing with T.V.O.R, I agree 100%, don’t ever sell yourself short, it would be like selling your soul to the devil.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I think you’ll find the majority of the public , if indeed they know about this spat, will regard it as an unwelcome distraction taking up time and resources which would be better spent in trying to put an end to this pandemic.

Well in that case I'm sure that Minister Ashford will come into work tomorrow and tell those people he was planning to have working on the point-by-point 'rebuttal'  (he wouldn't lie to us about giving them the weekend off I'm sure) and get them back to whatever they were doing to put an end to the pandemic. 

Or does that priority only apply to us plebs?

I'v commented before that I was never sure whether accounts such as TVOR were genuine or some sort of anti-government parody - bureaucratic Mad Uncle Ronnies if you like.  But their pronouncements echo the sort of behaviour that has been exposed more and more.  The arrogance and stupidity are demonstrated in the actions we have seen.  And the way in which the only response to criticism, no matter how polite, or reasoned or supported by evidence, is to tell us that everyone should shut up and do whatever they want.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Annoymouse said:

Wow, for the first time ever I’ve found myself agreeing with T.V.O.R, I agree 100%, don’t ever sell yourself short, it would be like selling your soul to the devil.

 

That's why I have lawyers. They make sure I'm not selling my soul to the devil. Everything that has been stated in the last few hours is hypothetical and not the reality of the current situation. The current situation is that the Health Minister is commenting on legal correspondence he hasn't gotten to grips with and a PAC inquiry which is about genomics, but the reality is that availability of on-Island genomics is intertwined with how Taxa have been treated by the DHSC. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rachomics said:

From my point of view, if the DHSC wanted to keep me quiet with cash (i.e. gagging order, compensation for libel, I win a civil case in the future where the DHSC is shown to be in the wrong) then that money is not mine and should be used for good, not personal gain. Argue against that all you want. 

We weren’t talking about money won in a legal case but hush money.

Obviously if you did come into money as a result of a legal case then it is yours to spend as you choose. I wouldn’t argue about that at all.

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

the establishment 

 

1 hour ago, Numbnuts said:

My thoughts also . I dont know RG but I like her lots for having the bottle to stand up to establishment

Paging @piebapsto thread

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well in that case I'm sure that Minister Ashford will come into work tomorrow and tell those people he was planning to have working on the point-by-point 'rebuttal'  (he wouldn't lie to us about giving them the weekend off I'm sure) and get them back to whatever they were doing to put an end to the pandemic. 

 

Well no. He has a duty to put his the Government/ his side of things. If someone said that the Government were killing all first born children the Government would be remiss in not rebutting that. Would you expect anything less?

Its unfortunate that we have to deal with this sort of stuff now when there are so many more important things going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Wow, for the first time ever I’ve found myself agreeing with T.V.O.R, I agree 100%, don’t ever sell yourself short, it would be like selling your soul to the devil.

How do you expect litigation going to occur following the PAC disclosures? The platform which Glover supplied her responses to benefits from legal privilege. They can’t actually sue her for any allegations or comments she made as the disclosures to the PAC were protected. However after a rebuttal statement what they now may well choose to do is offer her money for any potential case to go away as they may not want her repeating what was said without similar legal privilege in a court of law if that ends up the next stage. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WindJammer said:

How do you expect litigation going to occur following the PAC disclosures? The platform which Glover supplied her responses to benefits from legal privilege. They can’t actually sue her for any allegations or comments she made as the disclosures to the PAC were protected. However after a rebuttal statement what they now may well choose to do is offer her money for any potential case to go away as they may not want her repeating what was said without similar legal privilege in a court of law if that ends up the next stage. 

Sometimes yes money is offered as an alternative to going to court and all the expense involved and the thing dragging on even though you think your cause is right. 
I would be very disappointed if the Government went down this road in this case.

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...