Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Barlow said:

I seriously expect the following to appear:

. . . . we have moved on . . . . lessons have been learned . . .

Next question please.

Or the AG has advised no comment as it may be a legal matter 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Banker said:

Or the AG has advised no comment as it may be a legal matter 

The AG, presumably, would have advised DA before his PAC evidence on this matter as it is potentially the subject of litigation.  So either he didn't cover the point or DA ignored the advice. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Barlow said:

I seriously expect the following to appear:

. . . . we have moved on . . . . lessons have been learned . . .

Next question please.

It does seem to be turning into something of a witch hunt though.

At one time I was using kit that had to be pre-programmed to perform. Often the routines would run to pages and pages of code. We were encouraged to join the User Group which basically consisted of bulletin boards like MF. So folks would post up stuff like "I've got an IBM 3811 Controller driving a B&T 3211 and now and again it dies with a parity error. Anyone got a trap sequence?" or similar and mindful of the fact someone, doing the job you do, would be going to an angry customer so they would have a telephone directory down the back of their trousers, just like you would, so you would volunteer your code. Because the customer is king.

That nice Dr Glover took umbrage at what she considered was her company's intellectual property being basically pirated. But if she was being paid at one time by IOMG then aren't IOMG paying for what she knows? Including sort-of bespoke coding?

Personally I hate barrack-room lawyers. Anyway, Dr Glover has stated she would have "licensed" her coding to IOMG for about £200. Putting aside ongoing maintenance that seems to me a very small sum to pay to put this issue to bed and have everyone on the same hymn sheet and focused on what really matters - the customer who in this case is the GMP. How I hate Howard for coining that awful phrase.

Unfortunately it seems IOMG lacks anyone with the cojones to just cough up two hundred quid...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, P.K. said:

That nice Dr Glover took umbrage at what she considered was her company's intellectual property being basically pirated. But if she was being paid at one time by IOMG then aren't IOMG paying for what she knows? Including sort-of bespoke coding?

Well that was one of the six or seven 'explanations' that the DHSC gave for nicking her code.  They said it was theirs because she was their employee.  While at the same time saying that they couldn't take her advice because she wasn't their employee.  The other 'explanations also all contradicted all the others and sometimes themselves.  These people aren't just liars, they are really, really rubbish at it.

In actual fact the code had been written by Glover before she ever started working with them and she had proof of this because copies were held on GitHub.  That's why she has been emphasising this apparently trivial point because it was proof that they were acting dishonestly and issuing statements they knew to be untrue.  It's also why the 'rebuttal' has been a long time coming.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well that was one of the six or seven 'explanations' that the DHSC gave for nicking her code.  They said it was theirs because she was their employee.  While at the same time saying that they couldn't take her advice because she wasn't their employee.  The other 'explanations also all contradicted all the others and sometimes themselves.  These people aren't just liars, they are really, really rubbish at it.

In actual fact the code had been written by Glover before she ever started working with them and she had proof of this because copies were held on GitHub.  That's why she has been emphasising this apparently trivial point because it was proof that they were acting dishonestly and issuing statements they knew to be untrue.  It's also why the 'rebuttal' has been a long time coming.

Yes we're all aware of the circs - for the sake of two hundred quid. Parish pump politics at their very very worst. Especially the "letter" since destroyed - allegedly.

I do wonder about that letter being read out - pure theatre. When colleagues are slagging off other team members that says "lack of leadership" loud and clear to me. It seems Dr Glover ruffled more than a few feathers but that could be simply turning up every day with a strong work ethic....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we’ve all known for quite a while that there won’t be a point by point rebuttal as that can’t be achieved. (Truthfully).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, P.K. said:

When colleagues are slagging off other team members that says "lack of leadership" loud and clear to me. It seems Dr Glover ruffled more than a few feathers but that could be simply turning up every day with a strong work ethic....

New to the working in the DHSC are we....😀

Edited by Apple
changed last word and added emoji.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, P.K. said:

That nice Dr Glover took umbrage at what she considered was her company's intellectual property being basically pirated. But if she was being paid at one time by IOMG then aren't IOMG paying for what she knows? Including sort-of bespoke coding?

Jesus Fucking Christ, when you are employed by an Entity, be it private or public sector, then your employer does not then automatically own all of the contents of your brain and everything you have ever done previously. Fucks sake, especially when your primary focus was running a commercial laboratory where IP could well be fairly important. And one more time. Jesus Fucking Christ!!! This is clearly the opinion of an individual who has no original thoughts or ideas of their own so is not particularly concerned about who owns them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, reptar said:

Jesus Fucking Christ, when you are employed by an Entity, be it private or public sector, then your employer does not then automatically own all of the contents of your brain and everything you have ever done previously. Fucks sake, especially when your primary focus was running a commercial laboratory where IP could well be fairly important. And one more time. Jesus Fucking Christ!!! This is clearly the opinion of an individual who has no original thoughts or ideas of their own so is not particularly concerned about who owns them.

Don't worry about PK, he is a blowhard prat.  Given the breadth of his experience and knowledge, allegedly, he is actually quite unable to bring anything intelligent to the debate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reptar said:

Jesus Fucking Christ, when you are employed by an Entity, be it private or public sector, then your employer does not then automatically own all of the contents of your brain and everything you have ever done previously. Fucks sake, especially when your primary focus was running a commercial laboratory where IP could well be fairly important. And one more time. Jesus Fucking Christ!!! This is clearly the opinion of an individual who has no original thoughts or ideas of their own so is not particularly concerned about who owns them.

A deal should have been struck when Dr Glover first appeared with the routines. It wasn't. 

Now that was a BIG mistake.

Especially as it was very obvious to all that she was only there for the duration and then she would go back to running her business.

So both parties fucked up. Anyone playing the blame game should realise that and be reasonable about it. Instead both sides are now entrenched.

All for two hundred quid. Compared to the Half Tide Dock it is literally a drop in the ocean....

  • Like 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, P.K. said:

A deal should have been struck when Dr Glover first appeared with the routines. It wasn't. 

Now that was a BIG mistake.

Especially as it was very obvious to all that she was only there for the duration and then she would go back to running her business.

So both parties fucked up. Anyone playing the blame game should realise that and be reasonable about it. Instead both sides are now entrenched.

I can't see how you can blame Dr Glover for this.  It's quite clear from the evidence that she gave to the PAC that she tried hard to regularise various aspects of her employment by the DHSC (and remember she was still trying to 'run her business' at the same time).  And the DHSC did their usual thing of doing nothing until the last minute and then trying to impose whatever the first thing that they thought of was, without bothering to think of the consequences.  You can't come to an agreement all on your own.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Steam Packet Report actually contains some interesting evidence of just how useful genomics would have been if government had accepted Rachel's offer to sequence the viral genomes from the first patients in the February outbreak:

5.4.8 The first positive case notified to Contact Tracing in relation to the February 2021 outbreak was a UK/Non-IOM member of the Steam Packet crew. However I have noted from discussions with Contact Tracing that, whilst it is their clear view that this was the originating source for the February 2021 outbreak, the subsequent genomics data has only identified the infection as being ‘Kent variant’ and has not provided information to categorically link the outbreak to this as ‘case zero’.

5.4.9 Following the notification of the first positive UK crew member case, the Contact Tracing team made immediate contact with the crew member to identify high risk contacts in order to place them into isolation prior to spreading the infection.

5.4.10 However none of the seven high risk contacts identified and placed in isolation subsequently tested positive for Covid.

5.4.11 Subsequently, instead 4 other IOMSPCo crew members that had not been previously identified as High Risk and so had consequently not been placed in self-isolation, tested positive 7 days later.

5.4.12 By this time it is apparent that the virus was spreading in the community and manual Contact Tracing would not have had the resourcing capacity to successfully implement the Test, Trace and Isolate strategy to prevent a full community lockdown.

Of course it's not just the lack of genomics that was the problems here.  The refusal to regularly test people and to test widely when there was any new case detected are the main problems here and if done might have limited the outbreak.  But proper genomics would have reassured us that the outbreak was limited it it had been done - instead it appears that we still aren't certain of the cause.

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...