Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought the Government were moving out of the, afraid of the light of day method of governance. This administration latterly has moved the clock backwards in terms of operating with the light shining on everything they do. People who seek to hide from public scrutiny are unfit for public office.

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

Just now, Declan said:

Even if you have no doubts about the veracity of letter, you have to admit his conduct in the matter is pretty reprehensible. 

He's minster for health. He get's a letter alleging poor moral within his department. His response is to read it out at a press conference to score some minor point in his dispute with a scientist that has been working with his department. Then the letter having "served its purpose" he shreds it and blames GDPR. Is that HR best practice?

Then when the scientist gives evidence to a Tynwald Committee that causes public concern about his department, he promises a point by point rebuttal. This gives the impression that everything the scientist said was guff. It's going to be so detailed he needs to give the CS preparing it time off to recharge their batteries before embarking on the task.

He keeps promising for several weeks. Then when the public has forgotten the detail of the testimony he provides a much shorter response to the Committee leaving several points unrebuffed. When asked when the promised rebuttal will be published he's said all he has to say on the matter. But won't acknowledge the truthfullness of the scientist's testimony on the points he hasn't addressed. 

He's basically called her detailed testimony lies. Failed to prove that statement and relies on a cryptic comment that some people have an agenda. 

I'm only looking at it from the outside but he's right I do have an agenda - I want the Manx Government and it's ministers to behave honourably and with integrity and he's not convincing me that he has behaved that way. 

 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Ashford was asked by a Tynwald colleague (Edge) to supply to the Tynwald Court the point-by-point rebuttal of Dr Glover's claims made by her in front of a Tynwald Committee, an assurance he had given some weeks ago and repeatedly reiterated.

He declined to do so, stating that he had previously made statements to that effect to media outlets including Moulton TV.

That is not what was asked for. He was asked to supply the promised rebuttal to, and in, the Court of Tynwald. His failure to respond in the correct manner is a massive disrespect to not only his Tynwald colleagues but also the Court of Tynwald.

He will not issue the point by point rebuttal because he can't, as simple as that. What we have here is Dr. Glover's science, logic and facts up against the IoMG/CS staples of deflection, bullshit and yes, lies.

He's been caught out and he knows it and now so does anybody else who's interested. Fortunately for him, lots of the GMP are so disinterested or indifferent that it probably won't make much difference.

I've previously used the adjective puerile in this thread to describe Minister Ashford's previous conduct regarding "the letter". I'd now like to add to that the adjectives pathetic and mendacious.

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

He's been caught out and he knows it and now so does anybody else who's interested. Fortunately for him, lots of the GMP are so disinterested or indifferent that it probably won't make much difference.

I've previously used the adjective puerile in this thread to describe Minister Ashford's previous conduct regarding "the letter". I'd now like to add to that the adjectives pathetic and mendacious.

Our best hope is that it hasn't gone unnoticed by whoever is the next CM and he isn't given a ministerial post in September. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is clear that the 'politics' of the UK are  starting to creep into Tynwald. By this I mean a post truth style whereby you can say or assert whatever you like without evidence or a requirement to back it up or substantiate it. Boris Johnson answers any question as he pleases even if it's a downright lie and we've all become so used to it our senses are dulled.

For example look a the Dominic Cummings expose. Did Cummings actually say anything that surprised anybody?  I would say no, we all knew it and nothing will be done about it.

Furthermore if Ashford gets away without providing his 'point by point' rebuttal he will have won the day and we can expect a greater proliferation of such obfuscation in the future. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Declan said:

Our best hope is that it hasn't gone unnoticed by whoever is the next CM and he isn't given a ministerial post in September. 

What if he is (God forbid) the next CM?

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

I think it is clear that the 'politics' of the UK are  starting to creep into Tynwald. By this I mean a post truth style whereby you can say or assert whatever you like without evidence or a requirement to back it up or substantiate it. Boris Johnson answers any question as he pleases even if it's a downright lie and we've all become so used to it our senses are dulled.

For example look a the Dominic Cummings expose. Did Cummings actually say anything that surprised anybody?  I would say no, we all knew it and nothing will be done about it.

Furthermore if Ashford gets away without providing his 'point by point' rebuttal he will have won the day and we can expect a greater proliferation of such obfuscation in the future. 

Rodan (if not Watterson) should have insisted that the request be answered fully and correctly. Not for the first time in Tynwald he/they failed to do so.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

David Ashford produced the letter. Dr Glover more than implied it existed. And yes the author will not claim ownership for good reason.

Given the above the man on the Clapham omnibus would be drawn to the conclusion that there was such a letter. Trying to introduce the slightest element of doubt is disingenuous 

A mayfly’s existence may be ephemeral but would you suggest that they too do not exist?
 

 

If he thought the document was that important he could have made arrangements to have made it secure (GDPR-wise). He didn't and shredded it instead. That's disingenuous.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Rodan (if not Watterson) should have insisted that the request be answered fully and correctly. Not for the first time in Tynwald he/they failed to do so.

DA said he will decide what he says in public.  Arrogant. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Rodan (if not Watterson) should have insisted that the request be answered fully and correctly. Not for the first time in Tynwald he/they failed to do so.

I don't think they can do that. Each MHK is responsible for what he does or does not say. It is up to the others to make comment or not on whether the question has been appropriately answered.

beside, there are several phrases now well trotted out to avoid giving a full answer. The number of times I have heard someone say the will circulate information later to members, or invite for one to one chats etc. is too many. And this information often does not end up in the public domain. 

They all do it. They all let each other do it. 

A senior politician once told me that Tynwald is just "pure theatre and nothing gets achieved there". I didn't believe them at the time. Very sadly it has become apparent now. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Declan said:

Then when the scientist gives evidence to a Tynwald Committee that causes public concern about his department, he promises a point by point rebuttal. This gives the impression that everything the scientist said was guff. It's going to be so detailed he needs to give the CS preparing it time off to recharge their batteries before embarking on the task.

He keeps promising for several weeks. Then when the public has forgotten the detail of the testimony he provides a much shorter response to the Committee leaving several points unrebuffed. When asked when the promised rebuttal will be published he's said all he has to say on the matter. But won't acknowledge the truthfullness of the scientist's testimony on the points he hasn't addressed. 

He's basically called her detailed testimony lies. Failed to prove that statement and relies on a cryptic comment that some people have an agenda. 

I'm only looking at it from the outside but he's right I do have an agenda - I want the Manx Government and it's ministers to behave honourably and with integrity and he's not convincing me that he has behaved that way. 

 

Spot on, Declan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

David Ashford was asked by a Tynwald colleague (Edge) to supply to the Tynwald Court the point-by-point rebuttal of Dr Glover's claims made by her in front of a Tynwald Committee, an assurance he had given some weeks ago and repeatedly reiterated.

He declined to do so, stating that he had previously made statements to that effect to media outlets including Moulton TV.

That is not what was asked for. He was asked to supply the promised rebuttal to, and in, the Court of Tynwald. His failure to respond in the correct manner is a massive disrespect to not only his Tynwald colleagues but also the Court of Tynwald.

He will not issue the point by point rebuttal because he can't, as simple as that. What we have here is Dr. Glover's science, logic and facts up against the IoMG/CS staples of deflection, bullshit and yes, lies.

He's been caught out and he knows it and now so does anybody else who's interested. Fortunately for him, lots of the GMP are so disinterested or indifferent that it probably won't make much difference.

I've previously used the adjective puerile in this thread to describe Minister Ashford's previous conduct regarding "the letter". I'd now like to add to that the adjectives pathetic and mendacious.

You are also Spot-On,  NB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I've previously used the adjective puerile in this thread to describe Minister Ashford's previous conduct regarding "the letter". I'd now like to add to that the adjectives pathetic and mendacious.

I've got another few words to describe Minister Ashford, but I'd better keep them to myself for fear of upsetting The Voice of Reason's tender sensibilities. If anyone wants to play "Hangman", though, here's some clues:

Fu____g   Us_l_ss   Cu__

  • Haha 8
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...