Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

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.

I would be very very interested then to what course of action you think they should take !??? Or what option do they have . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • 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

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

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.

With respect I disagree. Every payoff I’ve ever seen is where people have a really good case. Many are done on the court room steps too after last minute legal advice on the financial realities of slugging a weak case out. But the fact remains. The disclosures she made last week benefits from full legal protection as disclosures to the PAC. They can’t sue her for what was said. What they can do though is try to get her in court to repeat some of them. I’m sure they will settle out of court before it comes to that though after a public rebuttal letter.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

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.

Actually in spite of being the recipient of much abuse on these forums (often not polite or reasoned) I have always tried to be polite and courteous.

Occasionally frustration may have led me to depart from this norm on occasion, for which I apologize but I would suggest that my postings are usually civil. Much more so than those who choose to use insulting and foul language.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

With respect I disagree. Every payoff I’ve ever seen is where people have a really good case. Many are done on the court room steps too after last minute legal advice on the financial realities of slugging a weak case out. But the fact remains. The disclosures she made last week benefits from full legal protection as disclosures to the PAC. They can’t sue her for what was said. What they can do though is try to get her in court to repeat some of them. I’m sure they will settle out of court before it comes to that though after a public rebuttal letter.

Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out.

Well you would as we all know the courts here are far from impartial!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out.

My assumption is that disclosures made to committees like the PAC are the truth. That’s why they give people who supply evidence to committees like the PAC legal privilege. So that they can categorically tell the truth without fear of legal consequences. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Good point. However I would rather they go to court so the truth comes out.

Thats not going to happen I feel as DA. and those around him have dug themselves a big hole and not sure how they can get out and retain any credibility whatsoever 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

With respect I disagree. Every payoff I’ve ever seen is where people have a really good case. Many are done on the court room steps too after last minute legal advice on the financial realities of slugging a weak case out. But the fact remains. The disclosures she made last week benefits from full legal protection as disclosures to the PAC. They can’t sue her for what was said. What they can do though is try to get her in court to repeat some of them. I’m sure they will settle out of court before it comes to that though after a public rebuttal letter.

So we can expect the point by point rebuttal at the next PAC meeting? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gladys said:

So we can expect the point by point rebuttal at the next PAC meeting? 

But my point is they confer legal privilege to those committees fir a reason. It’s so that people can tell the truth without fear of legal reprisals or litigation. All they can do is rebut at this stage. So yes the rebuttal will be before the next meeting but they can’t actually sue her for anything said either so they may well wish to settle out of court before the claims are actually repeated in a court of law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So we can expect the point by point rebuttal at the next PAC meeting? 

From what I've heard on here and PAC the other day will be interesting to see how they are going to manage that !. 

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

But my point is they confer legal privilege to those committees fir a reason. It’s so that people can tell the truth without fear of legal reprisals or litigation. All they can do is rebut at this stage. So yes the rebuttal will be before the next meeting but they can’t actually sue her for anything said either so they may well wish to settle out of court before the claims are actually repeated in a court of law. 

Yes, but if their rebuttal is at PAC, they will have that protection also, and the presumption of truth?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gladys said:

Yes, but if their rebuttal is at PAC, they will have that protection also, and the presumption of truth?

Indeed and then the only way to settle it is in a court of law which I would doubt the DHSC would wish to do (except for the below reasons). So we may get an awful slagging match and series of rebuttals under legal protection and nothing else.

Or equally they might successfully goad Glover enough to sue them and then try to take her to the cleaners with long protracted taxpayer funded litigation which could bankrupt her to defend. It’s been done as a tactic many times before. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, rachomics said:

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. 

 Can much be done about this constant denial that Genomics was/is of zero benefit to us? That is despite you explaining in layman’s terms how it all worked numerous times , you also offered to showcase your skills for free and we now have New Zealand as a running shining example?

For me that’s a lot more serious than any rights issue and ‘hypothetically’ we’ve all suffered as a result.

 

 

Edited by Annoymouse
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

Indeed and then the only way to settle it is in a court of law which I would doubt the DHSC would wish to do (except for the below reasons). So we may get an awful slagging match and series of rebuttals under legal protection and nothing else.

Or equally they might successfully goad Glover enough to sue them and then try to take her to the cleaners with long protracted taxpayer funded litigation which could bankrupt her to defend. It’s been done as a tactic many times before. 

Yes, indeed. So, no hope of a proper airing then, in all reality. 

  • Like 1
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...