Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

I dont get you , I'm not impressed with your manner and justification of 'voice of reason' . It would seem like bordering on obsession to give a alternative view . Yes for sure we all need the 'other side' but hey , can you not just be a normal human for once . I dont have a go at anyone on here as realise it takes all sorts , especially on a forum , and theres a few on here I wouldnt choose to sit down with on a night out but far more that I would be glad to. There , off my chest and hope you sit back for a time and take stock .

Wow!

Firstly I’m not seeking to impress you

Secondly, I’m not obsessed with giving an alternative view. Just expressing my opinions which may be different to yours or anyone else’s ( Forums - duh)

Thirdly I have always been a normal human being, not just for once I don’t have an option.

Fourthly, you say you don’t have a go at anyone. Well I try not to but as stated above it is a forum so people will have dIfferent views. I try to take into account other people’s views whilst avoiding foul language and abusive comments. Others may not.

Fifthly, yes I’d like to sit down with a beer with many contributors on here and chew the cud ( there were forum Christmas nights out previously but in view of the decline in behavior and standards here I don’t believe currently this would be feasible which is a shame)

I really don’t think I have anything to take stock of. If I have offended you in any way I apologies.

  • 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

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Please anyone do not suggest that I or anyone else on here are nom de plumes for either of those two. It gets tiresome.

 

I don't think anyone is being serious, it is more metaphorical.

A sort of "you are Mr X and I claim my £5"

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not all three hours are your words but that’s bye the bye. (by? I don’t know)

I’m talking about this thread. Maybe a dignified silence on here (and Twitter) would have served you better and given you less angst.

As we know there are two sides to every story. HQ and DA have been subject to much vilification on here and have chosen not to respond in this forum and have just used official channels. Professional you may call it.

Well the three hours are nearly all Rachel's words because she was giving evidence, so the whole point of the session was to hear from her.  That meant  the questions were also related to her experiences and knowledge and they were fairly brief, except from a bit of rambling from Robertshaw who's far too fond of the sound of his own voice.  It seems both petty and pointless to try to minimise what was a very unusually long and detailed witness session, which people found both informative and convincing.

And it's difficult to see what could be more of an 'official channel' than a Tynwald Committee.  Or do you think the taxpayer should be providing an army of spin doctors for Dr Glover so she can reply to Quayle and Ashford in the same 'official' manner?  

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

Well the three hours are nearly all Rachel's words because she was giving evidence, so the whole point of the session was to hear from her.  That meant  the questions were also related to her experiences and knowledge and they were fairly brief, except from a bit of rambling from Robertshaw who's far too fond of the sound of his own voice.  It seems both petty and pointless to try to minimise what was a very unusually long and detailed witness session, which people found both informative and convincing.

And it's difficult to see what could be more of an 'official channel' than a Tynwald Committee.  Or do you think the taxpayer should be providing an army of spin doctors for Dr Glover so she can reply to Quayle and Ashford in the same 'official' manner?  

With respect you appear to have missed the point. Yes the Tynwald Committee is an “official channel”. It’s absolutely right and  sign of a healthy democracy that this is available to Dr Glover. I certainly would not wish to minimise the session, that would be petty and pointless. It certainly was informative and everyone will use their own judgement as to how convincing they found it.

My point is that if you choose to use social media to prosecute your case then you can hardly complain if others make posts with a different point of view.

Hope that’s cleared things up.

Edited by The Voice of Reason
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure posts of a different point of view is the issue. The issue is that the thread was created by someone other than the subject and she wishes it hadn’t been done and has stated so. That seems fair enough in my opinion. I wouldn’t like it either, whether I went on to post in it or not.

I’m not entirely sure why you are fudging the issue. You’re not trying to be controversial are you? 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roxanne said:

I’m not sure posts of a different point of view is the issue. The issue is that the thread was created by someone other than the subject and she wishes it hadn’t been done and has stated so. That seems fair enough in my opinion. I wouldn’t like it either, whether I went on to post in it or not.

I’m not entirely sure why you are fudging the issue. You’re not trying to be controversial are you? 

To be fair, the thread was created long before the PAC hearing, and I don't think RG objected to it before.  I am a genuine supporter of RG, but you cannot expect something as explosive as what appears to have been going on not to be commented on.  Whether her name is in the title is also irrelevant, it would be mentioned in the thread, so I am not sure where the issue is. 

I will say it again, from what we have seen, I support RG and wait to hear the rebuttal. BTW,  that was supposed to be issued before the end of this week,  that is today. 

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Gladys said:

To be fair, the thread was created long before the PAC hearing, and I don't think RG objected to it before.  I am a genuine supporter of RG, but you cannot expect something as explosive as what appears to have been going on not to be commented on.  Whether her name is in the title is also irrelevant, it would be mentioned in the thread, so I am not sure where the issue is. 

I will say it again, from what we have seen, I support RG and wait to hear the rebuttal. BTW,  that was supposed to be issued before the end of this week,  that is today. 

Agreed

It's a news story and is discussed the same way on here as every other topic of interest.

I don't have a negative view towards RG and I am currently waiting the rebuttal with an eyebrow firmly arched, however to post publicly on Twitter and attract journalists attention then react disappointed that there's a thread on MF about the same topic...... I mean if there was a PhD to be had in Quelle Surprise.....

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

however to post publicly on Twitter and attract journalists attention then react disappointed that there's a thread on MF about the same topic...... I mean if there was a PhD to be had in Quelle Surprise.....

That's us Aspies for you, mad savant skills, but not so good at reading the room.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I’m not sure posts of a different point of view is the issue. The issue is that the thread was created by someone other than the subject and she wishes it hadn’t been done and has stated so. That seems fair enough in my opinion. I wouldn’t like it either, whether I went on to post in it or not.

I’m not entirely sure why you are fudging the issue. You’re not trying to be controversial are you? 

I think that by posting on the thread, that includes her name and the nature of those posts it does indicate tacit approval for that thread, at least initially. Surely she would have been better ignoring it? (which I earlier referred to as dignified silence)

Given that she did post on the thread it was inevitable that she would attract negative comments. If there were only supporting comments would she still have the same desire for it to be deleted?

I am not fudging any issue or trying to be controversial, just making comment.

 

Edited by The Voice of Reason
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Gladys said:

 

I will say it again, from what we have seen, I support RG and wait to hear the rebuttal. BTW,  that was supposed to be issued before the end of this week,  that is today. 

that old fella dying yesterday will be used as an excuse to drag things out.

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...