Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2
 Share

Recommended Posts

I take the opportunity to thank Roger Mexico; 2112, finlo, Two-lane; Non-Believer; Code99; Augustus and Gladys for their threads questioning the conduct of the Advocates/Lawyers/AG on the Isle of Man. It is accepted the Isle of Man Courts protect their own and rarely hold Advocates/Lawyers to account. There is no opportunity to question the conduct of an opposing Advocate/Lawyer despite the fact they can ruin reputations, cause financial hardship, break up families, and impact people's health. I hold my breath, hoping the Lord Garnier review will highlight the failure in the Isle of Man judicial system.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Beyond Belief said:

I take the opportunity to thank Roger Mexico; 2112, finlo, Two-lane; Non-Believer; Code99; Augustus and Gladys for their threads questioning the conduct of the Advocates/Lawyers/AG on the Isle of Man. It is accepted the Isle of Man Courts protect their own and rarely hold Advocates/Lawyers to account. There is no opportunity to question the conduct of an opposing Advocate/Lawyer despite the fact they can ruin reputations, cause financial hardship, break up families, and impact people's health. I hold my breath, hoping the Lord Garnier review will highlight the failure in the Isle of Man judicial system.

I have also concluded that there is an inbuilt deference to politicos from the mainstream media - IOM Newspapers and NPM. For example, on the NPM there is a photo of Andy Wint with CM Cannan. It should be a proper interview not a cozy chat, a friendly handshake. Politicos need to be grilled and their feet held to the coals, both from the presenter and the people who phone in asking the questions. Cannan evades proper scrutiny and look how it got before Ashford got found out. 
 

At least Paul Moulton for all his cosy fireside chat routine, can if he wants ask the right questions. He has contacts working within IOMG, and without which he wouldn’t have found out about DHSC appeal over Ranson. He got a car crash from Minister Hooperman. If he hadn’t had got the scoop, the IOMG would have steamrolled over everyone. IOMTV, Paul Moulton and Chris Robertshaw are now a thorn in IOMGs side. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gov. has hired a local company, Expol (possibly derived from Ex-Police), to analyse some of the computer files involved in this case.

Expol cannot stray too far outside the boundaries of reasonable behaviour without compromising their professional status, but nevertheless they would seem to be an expert witness employed by one side of the court case.

It seems to me (as an unthinking member of the public) that any evidence they produce has no value unless the other side of the court case can hire their own expert witness to analyse the same documents and produce their own report.

In the appeal hearings this week it was stated several times that the Tribunal cannot conduct an investigation, which is presumably why they have not done so. But things seem to me to be very unbalanced.

Edited:

Presumably it was up to Ranson's lawyers to try to get the documents analysed?

Edited by Two-lane
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Two-lane said:

The gov. has hired a local company, Expol (possibly derived from Ex-Police), to analyse some of the computer files involved in this case.

Expol cannot stray too far outside the boundaries of reasonable behaviour without compromising their professional status, but nevertheless they would seem to be an expert witness employed by one side of the court case.

Actually Chris Robertshaw stays into that territory in the video. They appointed Expol very late in the day and they have made it clear that Expols work won’t be completed by the time of the next hearing date. Robertshaw asked if this was a tactic to again delay things until Expol had done the work. However I’d be questioning why Expol were even engaged. The defense team had forensic evidence presented to the hearing the first time round which cast a lot of doubt on the authenticity of DHSC documents presented to the court. But this hearing is supposed to be to determine what Ranson gets by way of compensation. So why are they all of a sudden concerned about having documents validated by a third party they have engaged for this hearing unless they they know they are going to have to defend this issue as part of the next part of the process having failed to get the directions hearing to throw out the notion that it’s remit shouldn’t wander into this sort of territory. The Deemsters view however on the delay in having evidence validated by Expol available seems to have been tough shit you had enough time to engage them and agree a completion date and you didn’t.

I’d say that on this basis the validity of documents presented to the court and any further action that might be taken as a result of that could be a significant part of next weeks events. You only need to have documents validated like this if you expect to have to defend their validity as part of the hearing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have  I got this right?
a CE0,  Ms Magson  was appointed, (or rather, not appointed but seconded from her job for a period of time for some reason ) to come and work here - (or in her case, not come and work here).

During this time, very serious problems  arose which resulted in a employment tribunal which her Department not only lost but it also revealed unequivocal and damning evidence of her maltreatment of Dr Ranson and further evidence of collusion with others to further undermine her position.

During this time of national emergency, not only Dr Ranson was impeded from doing her job, the focus of the CEO and others would seem to have been focused more on the attrition of  Ranson  than dealing with the Pandemic.

Presumably with the damage behind her, she  has returned  from wherever she came?

Health care professionals such as doctors and nurses can be sanctioned by their professional  bodies such as the GNC and the GMC   for serious professional misconduct to the extent they can be  “Struck -Off “

- rendering them unemployable.

For the  ex. CEO and other DHSC officials, there doesn’t appear to be any such overseeing professional body with those  powers 

From what we have seen and what is still emerging

- Maybe there should be.
 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

The gov. has hired a local company, Expol (possibly derived from Ex-Police), to analyse some of the computer files involved in this case.

Expol cannot stray too far outside the boundaries of reasonable behaviour without compromising their professional status, but nevertheless they would seem to be an expert witness employed by one side of the court case.

It seems to me (as an unthinking member of the public) that any evidence they produce has no value unless the other side of the court case can hire their own expert witness to analyse the same documents and produce their own report.

In the appeal hearings this week it was stated several times that the Tribunal cannot conduct an investigation, which is presumably why they have not done so. But things seem to me to be very unbalanced.

Edited:

Presumably it was up to Ranson's lawyers to try to get the documents analysed?

Isn’t it a bit conflict of interest? I believe Expol are ex IOM police. Whatever the outcome, it’s hardly a truly independent investigation? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, hampsterkahn said:

 

Health care professionals such as doctors and nurses can be sanctioned by their professional  bodies such as the GNC and the GMC   for serious professional misconduct to the extent they can be  “Struck -Off “

- rendering them unemployable.

For the  ex. CEO and other DHSC officials, there doesn’t appear to be any such overseeing professional body with those  powers 

- Maybe there should be.
 

This is something I've always thought is a problem, not in relation to here or this particular instance, but generally in health worldwide.  A 'manager' can fail, buff up his or her linked-in profile to make it sound like a great success, and move on to the next place.  The NHS are, I believe, trying to address this with recognised qualifications at least, but nothing like a regulatory body that could remove a 'license to manage'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WTF said:

they can't have , nobody with those characteristics is available,

I totally share your scepticism, but whose fault is it that there is such paucity of capable MHKs?

As day follows night, every five years budding and extant MHK candidates come knocking on doors bearing ‘gifts’ aka promises. One of the ‘obligatory’ promises they all make is to promise greater government ‘transparency and accountability’. But, as soon as they have firmly placed their backsides into the seats of the HoKs and/or are invited to join the CoMin club, most of them just toe the (required) line. Expecting a different outcome, by and large, would be wishful thinking. Unless backbenchers are tasked with forming a proper ‘opposition’ whose core duty is to scrutinise the government’s performance and hold the government to account, including individuals who misuse their power, our ‘village fair’ will continue until the IOM’s luck runs out - that could happen sooner rather than later, unfortunately.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, code99 said:

I totally share your scepticism, but whose fault is it that there is such paucity of capable MHKs?

 

no body ,  the fact is that unless you get rid of the whole tribe of self serving arse protecting vested interest protectorate and replace the whole show with people who know what they are doing it will forever remain so. anybody we would like to see in there that could do a good job knows that they will more than likely have to take a pay cut to join the cause and they will be intelligent enough to know that the rest of the room will work against any required change and do their damnedest to maintain the status quo for benefit of the few.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BriT said:

Actually Chris Robertshaw stays into that territory in the video. They appointed Expol very late in the day and they have made it clear that Expols work won’t be completed by the time of the next hearing date. Robertshaw asked if this was a tactic to again delay things until Expol had done the work. However I’d be questioning why Expol were even engaged. The defense team had forensic evidence presented to the hearing the first time round which cast a lot of doubt on the authenticity of DHSC documents presented to the court. But this hearing is supposed to be to determine what Ranson gets by way of compensation. So why are they all of a sudden concerned about having documents validated by a third party they have engaged for this hearing unless they they know they are going to have to defend this issue as part of the next part of the process having failed to get the directions hearing to throw out the notion that it’s remit shouldn’t wander into this sort of territory. The Deemsters view however on the delay in having evidence validated by Expol available seems to have been tough shit you had enough time to engage them and agree a completion date and you didn’t.

I’d say that on this basis the validity of documents presented to the court and any further action that might be taken as a result of that could be a significant part of next weeks events. You only need to have documents validated like this if you expect to have to defend their validity as part of the hearing. 

The same Expol hired by DHSC to shift blame at Abbotswood, right?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

The same Expol hired by DHSC to shift blame at Abbotswood, right?

It’s the same company. Didn’t know what they did for the Abbotswood case. But as the “case” lasted less than 20 minutes before being thrown out that probably speaks for itself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BriT said:

It’s the same company. Didn’t know what they did for the Abbotswood case. But as the “case” lasted less than 20 minutes before being thrown out that probably speaks for itself. 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/police-called-in-to-abbotswood-investigation/

Expol resulted in 5 people at Abbotswood being arrested in their 'police referral' and ultimate no case to answer. I believe DHSC have privately settled with the owners of Abbotswood for damages and other bits.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WTF said:

no body ,  the fact is that unless you get rid of the whole tribe of self serving arse protecting vested interest protectorate and replace the whole show with people who know what they are doing it will forever remain so. 

I agree. "How and when", that is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/police-called-in-to-abbotswood-investigation/

Expol resulted in 5 people at Abbotswood being arrested in their 'police referral' and ultimate no case to answer. I believe DHSC have privately settled with the owners of Abbotswood for damages and other bits.

In other words ………….. 🧹 carpet. More cost to the taxpayers from the magic money tree, and nobody being accountable. 
 

Out of interest, as there aren’t many gunshoes on the island, and the island is so incestous some out argue corrupt, the DHSC, just decided to give them the business, no questions asked, presumably at top dollar charged. I can only assume that these inch eye private eyes, are on the IOMG speed dial, and go to when they want getting out of the shit.

Edited by 2112
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...