Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[BenFairfax 119]

5 hours ago, rachomics said:

I'm just better at cooking DNA than I am at cooking biscuits.

I was thinking of trying out Gene Editing in kitchen with CRISPR techniques Not sure what DNA I am allowed to edit in IoM, but like idea selecting for wind resistance for garden veggies.

 

[John Wright 7,994]

11 hours ago, rachomics said:

My impression of Howard from the one time I've met him (UCM awards ceremony a few weeks ago) and the briefings is that he's rather superior and clearly thinks he's better than everyone else. He hasn't left the door open for negotiations, he's not interested in the negotiations, he believes they're beneath him

But politicians shouldn’t be involved in these negotiations. They should be setting the policy parameters, ie, we want this troublesome woman on board for what she brings to the party, either at any price or as long as she doesn’t cost more than the alternatives ( if there are any ), or who will rid me of this troublesome woman? Go find someone, anyone, else, at any price.

For parish pump politics to descend to this level it takes misjudgments of responsibility on both sides. 

It is HQ’s responsibility, and decision, who to take advice from and which conflicting advice to listen to.

Its HQ and DA job to set policy, and parameters, as I’ve described above.

Its then down to senior civil servants to do coal face negotiations. Then present results for consideration and sign off, or rejection.

Too often here everyone seems to want to short cut and go straight to the minister or an MHK. That isn’t, or shouldn’t be, their job. 

Is it any surprise that service delivery is so ad hoc and dysfunctional.

[PaulJ 357]

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

 we need Rachael more than she needs us. (For sure).

I don't

[Roxanne 1,425]

Let's hope you never do mate. Let's hope you never do.

[Holte End 606]

16 minutes ago, PaulJ said:

I don't

You are Dave Shredder Ashford and I claim my five pounds.

I never trust someone who always says " I stand to be corrected`' in answering questions.

 

 

[Happier diner 400]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

But politicians shouldn’t be involved in these negotiations. They should be setting the policy parameters, ie, we want this troublesome woman on board for what she brings to the party, either at any price or as long as she doesn’t cost more than the alternatives ( if there are any ), or who will rid me of this troublesome woman? Go find someone, anyone, else, at any price.

For parish pump politics to descend to this level it takes misjudgments of responsibility on both sides. 

It is HQ’s responsibility, and decision, who to take advice from and which conflicting advice to listen to.

Its HQ and DA job to set policy, and parameters, as I’ve described above.

Its then down to senior civil servants to do coal face negotiations. Then present results for consideration and sign off, or rejection.

Too often here everyone seems to want to short cut and go straight to the minister or an MHK. That isn’t, or shouldn’t be, their job. 

Is it any surprise that service delivery is so ad hoc and dysfunctional.

He put the pomp in pompous 

[Apple 656]

12 hours ago, rachomics said:

Don't worry  I'm returning. Just on my terms without any of the BS. 

Good to hear. 

 

[rachomics 874]

9 hours ago, PaulJ said:

So not untenable after all then?

The only untenable part, if you listen to what I said to Paul Moulton, was continuing to work as a DHSC employee when the specifics of my employment status meant my expertise would never input to anything which aided decision making. The role wasn't untenable, just my specific employment status.

I don't suppose you moonlight as "Isabella Brown" on Facebook, do you? The pair of you seem to have a very similar dislike of me. 

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

But politicians shouldn’t be involved in these negotiations. They should be setting the policy parameters, ie, we want this troublesome woman on board for what she brings to the party, either at any price or as long as she doesn’t cost more than the alternatives ( if there are any ), or who will rid me of this troublesome woman? Go find someone, anyone, else, at any price.

For parish pump politics to descend to this level it takes misjudgments of responsibility on both sides. 

It is HQ’s responsibility, and decision, who to take advice from and which conflicting advice to listen to.

Its HQ and DA job to set policy, and parameters, as I’ve described above.

Its then down to senior civil servants to do coal face negotiations. Then present results for consideration and sign off, or rejection.

Too often here everyone seems to want to short cut and go straight to the minister or an MHK. That isn’t, or shouldn’t be, their job. 

Is it any surprise that service delivery is so ad hoc and dysfunctional.

I should have phrased it better. My point was that HQ isn't involved in negotiations at all. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by rachomics

[John Wright 7,994]

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

The only untenable part, if you listen to what I said to Paul Moulton, was continuing to work as a DHSC employee. The role wasn't untenable, just my employment status.

I should have phrased it better. My point was that HQ isn't involved in negotiations at all. 

Which is as it should be.

[manxman34 296]

43 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Which is as it should be.

But seldom is. On this occasion, one suspects his non-involvement is more about protecting his amour propre than observing the niceties.

[the stinking enigma 11,141]

13 hours ago, Hmmmm said:

 

My impression of Howard from the one time I've met him (UCM awards ceremony a few weeks ago) and the briefings is that he's rather superior and clearly thinks he's better than everyone else. He hasn't left the door open for negotiations, he's not interested in the negotiations, he believes they're beneath him. 

 

For clarity comment was about HQ

I'm curious. Was this post meant for here? It's just that it reads like a sort of note meant for somewhere else?

[the stinking enigma 11,141]

Not sure why you had to clarify that the Howard in question was HQ. Seems a bit strange to me. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by the stinking enigma

[the stinking enigma 11,141]

It's like you had to simplify it for stupid people. That can only mean one thing in my book.

[rachomics 874]

Not at all, I just don't spend any time reading back my previous posts and assumed I hadn't explained properly when part of it was quoted.

[the stinking enigma 11,141]

Sorry, not you Rachel, it was more the summing up post by hmmm. As if it was to be forwarded to someone else. I didn't explain it very well, it just seemed a weird thing for hmmm to write after quoting your post.