Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Kopek said:

I know, professionally, some of the people involved in this debacle and would not wish them any personal harm or angst but did they show the same consideration to Ranson???

Nope , they were happy to throw her under a bus and its come back to bite them big time. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

I know, professionally, some of the people involved in this debacle and would not wish them any personal harm

Well, that’s reassuring 

In a  small place,I guess a few of us know a few people; some of us know a lot of people; some of us  know an awful lot of people…

Many of these  relationships  fall into the “professional” category, in one way or another.

Why would you  wish them  any of them harm, based solely on being involved..  “in this debacle “?

Or, as you put it,“ personal” harm.

Is that a specially unpleasant type of “Harm”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kopek said:

Why should Hooper go if he was not in favour of the action?

Hooper will inevitably prove how dispensable he is over this. He’s probably been badly advised but then again he’s the Minister. Ashford was badly advised by those around him too and look what happened to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wavey Davey said:

Hooper will inevitably prove how dispensable he is over this. He’s probably been badly advised but then again he’s the Minister. Ashford was badly advised by those around him too and look what happened to him. 

Yes, but they both have egos which far outweigh their abilities !

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also seems to be just incompetence.  I find it hard to believe that anyone was deliberately falsifying evidence but very easy to believe that total incompetence and lack of knowledge and bad advice is behind a lot of it.  
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this issue was all about Dr Ranson being treated very badly...?

So why all the animosity towards Hooper?

I'm aware a lot of folks have had it in for him from the go-get but even so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master Hooper is responsible for the action , he confirmed he signed off on it , whether he did it reluctantly or not is irrelevant  ( which is what he indicated in the interview on IOM TV), this shows his lack backbone and political understanding. So many politicians fail to understand that they are there to represent the people who voted them in and hold the government machine to account. All to often as in this case they believe they are part of the process and need to defend “ it “ rather than hold the system and the process to account . Anyone with common sense ( which he obviously lacks ) could see where this was going and why the action was brought forward which could only further frustrate and highlight  to the general public that the civil service defends its interests above what is right . 
 

What this does highlight is that MHKs need to be able to access independent legal advice and not just follow what the AG office advises. This may have helped “The Boy Hooper” in making the right decision .

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I thought this issue was all about Dr Ranson being treated very badly...?

So why all the animosity towards Hooper?

I'm aware a lot of folks have had it in for him from the go-get but even so...

That's the point, to perpetuate the DHSC conduct towards Dr Ranson with frivoious high court action, which Hooper as Minister could have stopped makes him complicit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mann O Mann said:

Master Hooper is responsible for the action , he confirmed he signed off on it , whether he did it reluctantly or not is irrelevant  ( which is what he indicated in the interview on IOM TV), this shows his lack backbone and political understanding. So many politicians fail to understand that they are there to represent the people who voted them in and hold the government machine to account. All to often as in this case they believe they are part of the process and need to defend “ it “ rather than hold the system and the process to account . Anyone with common sense ( which he obviously lacks ) could see where this was going and why the action was brought forward which could only further frustrate and highlight  to the general public that the civil service defends its interests above what is right . 
 

What this does highlight is that MHKs need to be able to access independent legal advice and not just follow what the AG office advises. This may have helped “The Boy Hooper” in making the right decision .

Exactly the kind of animosity I meant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Holte End said:

That's the point, to perpetuate the DHSC conduct towards Dr Ranson with frivoious high court action, which Hooper as Minister could have stopped makes him complicit.

By "frivolous" do you mean the appeal?

Hooper is exactly right that it's a good way to make sure everything is in the public domain.

Had to laugh at all the "car crash" comments about the interview with PM. I mean, what " interview" was that?

They both should know better...

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bear no animosity towards Lawrie Hooper and he is one of my MHKs.

I believe he inherited this situation which was not of his making; however he signed off and therefore supported an action which has failed. The intent of that action was to cover up questionable conduct in the Ranson matter.

He should have known far, far better and with this "gamble" having failed he should do the honourable thing. As Minister he is not there to defend or cover up dishonourable conduct by his Department's public servants. He is there to serve his taxpaying electorate.

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

43 minutes ago, P.K. said:

By "frivolous" do you mean the appeal?

Hooper is exactly right that it's a good way to make sure everything is in the public domain.

Had to laugh at all the "car crash" comments about the interview with PM. I mean, what " interview" was that?

They both should know better...

So Mr Hooper agreed to it for Government Transparency, Well I think someone should put him forward for an MBE.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gladys said:

Indeed, not sure if the window is closed for that though.  But, again everyone has made their mind up on this.  Perhaps there is a more straightforward explanation that points to incompetence rather than some conspiracy. 

Not that that is any better for the GMP, and still needs to be addressed and quickly, but we need to wait and see what transpires next week rather than expecting a whole expose of misdeeds. 

If I have followed this correctly it's not just the dates not matching, there was minutes of meetings of "committees"  that were presented that are dated before these committees were even created.

That is not incompetence 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
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...