Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

I quite enjoy Manx Forums. There's nothing wrong with a bit of satire.  Happy to defend myself, wherever that may be. I grew up knocking around Willaston so while you may believe that someone wit

This is what is so extraordinary.  Except it now appears they had since Wednesday morning to get the response correct and they still managed to come up with something that made a staged denunciation a

Posted Images

I wonder if the Minister ever considered sharing the contents of the letter with the political members of DHSC before he shredded it? If he had then surely one of them would be able to verify that both the contents and sender were bona fide?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

Responsibility remains with Minister Ashford who published it by reading it out. The writer only published it to Ashford. Ashford published it to the world. Guess which attracts the most damages, if it’s defamatory, which I doubt.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Ms Glover following her flounce and histrionics has been welcomed back into the fold.

Lets all move on

I hate to sound like such a bitch, but it's Dr. Glover to you. Anyone else can call me Rachel. 

The interesting point that you don't seem to have realised is that I resigned. It's now the DHSC who are contacting me to get my services back after they realised my skills were required after all. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not one for blowing anyones trumpet usually, but I think we should appreciate that @rachomics is even prepared to come back to the table after all the going on. Even if they want her first child and to plant a chip in her, she's still prepared to consider it.

To me? Kudos to her. Most of us would tell them where to shove it. I don't believe she's doing so strictly for commercial gain and moreso for the benefit of our Island.

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

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

I'm not sure that it is libellous anyway (I think speech become libel if transmitted or recorded electronically) because the letter was mainly whingeing about how the media were reporting your contribution rather than the much more essential one of the the Assistant Deputy DHSC Paperclip Manager or whoever wrote it.  Jealousy may be unpleasant to be on the receiving end of, but it isn't a crime.

Of course Moulton and the rest of the media are keeping on about this ridiculous letter because it was dissing them as well.  But it shouldn't be forgotten that the most important point here is the one you made that triggered all this - that scientific input should be at the heart of assessing any measures that are taken.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Responsibility remains with Minister Ashford who published it by reading it out. The writer only published it to Ashford. Ashford published it to the world. Guess which attracts the most damages, if it’s defamatory, which I doubt.

I am sure you are right, but to be sure one would need to know what was said or intended to be said in the missing 20 seconds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Responsibility remains with Minister Ashford who published it by reading it out. The writer only published it to Ashford. Ashford published it to the world. Guess which attracts the most damages, if it’s defamatory, which I doubt.

One thing that I keep hearing is some confusion from Ashford. If you rewatch the Moulton piece yesterday he stated multiple times that he was asked to read it out by the author

 But I seem to recall him saying previously that he called the person up asking if he could read it out.

It is clear that someone briefed DA to read it out when the opportunity arises during the briefing. He didn't help himself by picking the wrong opportunity to trigger it.

Edited by jaymann
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It sets an important precedent though.

If politicians can destroy documents their Departments policies say should be kept (as I pointed out ) without any challenge from other politicians or civil servants then they all might as well just go home.  Policies are meant to be adhered to by all, not just the public.

Very unsatisfactory state of affairs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I suspect if I decided to sue the Minister for slander, a copy of that letter would rapidly be "discovered" to defend him and pass the buck onto the author and the permission given to read it out. 

While the letter is total bollocks, I don't think it was slanderous. It was more 'it's not just her (you) there's a team'. That's kind of the whole point. Even though the point is daft.

Obviously I'm not the person the letter is aimed at though so you may consider it differently.

You said a while ago words to the effect of "they're being pricks about it and I'm calling them out" (I can't be arsed going looking for the actual quote) and I'm delighted that you're sticking to it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Furthermore, I do not believe the whole letter was read out, or rather broadcast.

If you watch the relevant part of the briefing, when questions start (click below) you will not that there is a cut/freeze in transmission for about 30 seconds in total. (at about 19:46) and a little further along there is another cut. 

So there are sections of the reading out of this letter that were not broadcast. 

So - another very good reason to ask to see the letter, or for that matter, just the text of the body.

 

Have you compared that to the segment that Moulton has on his YouTube (it was his question after all)?  Presumably he records it separately.

Also the FoI reply now contains a transcription of the letter (with a few inaudible bits), so it would be interesting to compare it to reality.  It's on the FoI Search with the title "Anonymous letter from press conference 30 October 2020" and submission date of 02/11/20 as a separate file: Letter to Minister - Transcription.pdf.pdf.

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...