Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Gladys said:

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

I don’t know. She seems to be quite an outspoken / volatile person. They could well try to press every button under the sun under legal privilege to get her to launch litigation then put a few million in a bank account and drag it out for years via the AG and the Courts and bleed her dry in enforced defense costs. Or they may not choose to be that aggressive and pay for it to go away. Either way at the moment what’s been said seems to be protected for now. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WindJammer said:

I don’t know. She seems to be quite an outspoken / volatile person. They could well try to press every button under the sun under legal privilege to get her to launch litigation then put a few million in a bank account and drag it out for years via the AG and the Courts and bleed her dry in enforced defense costs. Or they may not choose to be that aggressive and pay for it to go away. Either way at the moment what’s been said seems to be protected for now. 

Yes, I can see the tactic, but I wouldn't describe her as volatile, just principled.  But, from experience, that often backfires. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes 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. 

Well it’s in the hands of Dr Glover and her lawyers.

My personal opinion is rather than solely financial gain, I would like to see those accused of poor treatment and handling of matters held accountable, if guilty of course.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

Poke em with enough sticks and they come out fighting 👍

Yep, tried that, but my pockets and personal wellbeing were finite! 

Edited by Gladys
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

I would like to see those accused of poor treatment and handling of matters held accountable, if guilty of course.

You wouldn't see it.

Quietly retired, lump sum, pension.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yep, tried that, but my pockets and personal wellbeing were finite! 

That’s really the point I was trying to make to Voice of Reason (!) in that just because you might accept money to stop legal proceedings doesn’t mean that you aren’t 100% right with the worlds strongest case. Many really strong cases get bought out. A lawyer gave me very good advice years ago which was never sue anyone who is much more wealthy than you on a point of principle as if they choose to drag it out they can afford to write cheques that you can’t. 

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

5 minutes ago, WindJammer said:

That’s really the point I was trying to make to Voice of Reason (!) in that just because you might accept money to stop legal proceedings doesn’t mean that you aren’t 100% right with the worlds strongest case. Many really strong cases get bought out. A lawyer gave me very good advice years ago which was never sue anyone who is much more wealthy than you on a point of principle as if they choose to drag it out they can afford to write cheques that you can’t. 

That is true.  Sometimes it is better to leave the battle with your principles, bank balance and wellbeing relatively in tact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know Dr Glover.

I have a strong suspicion she could have, should have, wanted to, assist in reducing deaths, infection rates and minimising lockdowns where possible.

I do not know the senior politicians involved.

The more I hear from them, well, the more they believe, of their own poisonous self interested waffle.

A time for change.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, quilp said:

Common practice. I've seen quite a few come and go, usually good people eventually too frustrated at not being able to make a positive difference.

Further back than Charters, the reason why it's so difficult to induce change is because of an entrenched ideology.

I beg to differ, those terms describe a great deal. I prefer 'group think' myself, and a climate of fear that keeps people in their place.

Very true. I've seen it and experienced it. There's a big problem with the plethora of 'smiling assassins' in middle-management. I think RG has unwittingly been a victim of this cancel culture; too trusting on face-value.

I'd agree, but there's an insidious level of protectionism of position and self-regard.

I'd agree here also. Power and influence together. All very underhand and undermining the confidence of any challenge to the status quo is a well-used tactic.

That would really be an almost impossible task. From the coalface through to the higher echelons so many have come and gone for a variety of reasons. And there's been a considerable amount of talent and resource ignored and cast aside for all the reasons being discussed. Many departed out of sheer frustration once becoming aware of the culture. And there have been those who didn't leave and became part of the structure, using it too their advantage.

I'd say there is an understanding of what happened to Rachel and where she is coming from but much less of an inclination to do anything about it. Don't threaten the status quo by taking sides. The far-reaching consequences of alliance would make your life hell. No one wants to be cast into the wilderness by speaking their mind, this is something you learn very early on.

It's a nice thought but once again no one would want to jeopardise their position, or advancement by speaking out and projecting alliances when there's so much at stake.

Ain't gonna happen. Even if it did, the testimony of the experiences of others would carry no weight nor hold water. You cannot criticise government publicy if you're employed by them. There would be consequences. This deters employees from speaking out.

She has exposed something, but expecting Joe Public to understand just what it is she's exposed is another matter. Docile Manxies are rarely up for a challenge and the brave few who clamour for solid accountability and openness are met with little enthusiasm and there is a majority out there who appear to have a great deal of support for this administration. Whatever the outward appearance of political modernity presents, politically we're still a nation of disinterested cap-doffers and forelock-tuggers to authority, who prefer the decisions are made by someone else. 

This is not just a DHSC problem it exist's throughout every Government Department at all levels, if you question the hierarchy you will have a bumpy ride and put out to grass somewhere away from public glare and will eventually be forced out, I know several good people who have had this done and eventually they either toed the line or moved on.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

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

yes, the truth always comes out  when fighting against IOMG in IOMG's courts,  fuck off. I'm still splitting my sides. 😄

Edited by Pipsqueak
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

And of those people I talk to a minority know there is some sort of issue between what they see as a laboratory and the Government but they haven’t got a clue what it is about, nor do they care.

Thats the truth of it.

Don't be so sure, Manx folk are not as stupid as you would like to think, the proof of the pudding will be in the results of the GE. Manx folk do care about their reputation and if a little prick of a minister is disrepectful and trying to mislead the general public he will know at the ballot box, he can do all the granny farming he wants, look what happened his predessor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On MR, this morning, Ashie used the words. . . "after Dr Glover left the Dept. . ."

Hang on. . . didn't he and Howie always claim that Rachel was NOT a member of the Dept.?

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...