IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Banker]

13 hours ago, Steady Eddie said:

That’s no excuse.

Why isn’t a lack of staff an excuse for being unable to cope with demands?

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/health/one-in-five-health-service-jobs-vacant-566136

[Holte End]

https://www.courts.im/media/3029/chancery.pdf

New Minister ,no change,  

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Holte End said:

https://www.courts.im/media/3029/chancery.pdf

New Minister ,no change,  

We did know about this one.  It's a bit weird because it's not really DHSC v Ranson, but AG's Office v the Tribunal, as the former claiming that client privilege applies while the Tribunal says it's nothing to do with it (it isn't).  It's just more can-kicking which seems to be the only way the government knows how to operate.  But Callister isn't going to intervene without legal advice and as the only place he can get that is the AG's Office ....

[Dirty Buggane]

Keep it tied up in legal mumbo jumbo and hope it disappears, or people lose interest. Non of which I hope happens, when are more of the civil service going to be dragged into the light showing them to be incompetent and either being sacked or resigning with no golden handshakes or if found to be in breach of employment terms loss of pension rights. All seems to have stagnated, with the keep your head down.Keep quite it will soon blow over mantra being muttered under the collective cs breath.

[John Wright]

12 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

We did know about this one.  It's a bit weird because it's not really DHSC v Ranson, but AG's Office v the Tribunal, as the former claiming that client privilege applies while the Tribunal says it's nothing to do with it (it isn't).  It's just more can-kicking which seems to be the only way the government knows how to operate.  But Callister isn't going to intervene without legal advice and as the only place he can get that is the AG's Office ....

I thought that DHSC, and thus the minister, was being advised by CallinWild, not the AG’s.

And privilege belongs to the client, not the AG’s.

[WTF]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I thought that DHSC, and thus the minister, was being advised by CallinWild, not the AG’s.

And privilege belongs to the client, not the AG’s.

 will callin wild want to piss off the AG's on this matter?

[Holte End]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I thought that DHSC, and thus the minister, was being advised by CallinWild, not the AG’s.

And privilege belongs to the client, not the AG’s.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/appeal-to-decide-if-advocate-can-give-evidence-to-tribunal/

Forgive me, as my understanding of the law is from ladybird books, but surely if Mrs Heeley was called to the tribunal she would just refuse to answer under client privilege. 

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, Holte End said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/appeal-to-decide-if-advocate-can-give-evidence-to-tribunal/

Forgive me, as my understanding of the law is from ladybird books, but surely if Mrs Heeley was called to the tribunal she would just refuse to answer under client privilege. 

The sensible answer is “I can only answer that question if you produce a waiver of privilege by the DHSC”

[Roger Mexico]

8 hours ago, John Wright said:

I thought that DHSC, and thus the minister, was being advised by CallinWild, not the AG’s.

And privilege belongs to the client, not the AG’s.

They're being represented by CallinWild in this particular case, but where else do they go for more generalised advice on eg "What do I do to stop this shitshow?"?  Not that I imagine Callister would have the initiative to ask.

[John Wright]

28 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

They're being represented by CallinWild in this particular case, but where else do they go for more generalised advice on eg "What do I do to stop this shitshow?"?  Not that I imagine Callister would have the initiative to ask.

The how do I stop this shit show is a political question. Surely CoMin should be giving the steer.

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The how do I stop this shit show is a political question. Surely CoMin should be giving the steer.

And who gives the legal steer to CoMin?  All roads lead back to the AG.

[John Wright]

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

And who gives the legal steer to CoMin?  All roads lead back to the AG.

They should be two separate things.

Comin to Callister. Bring this shit show to an end and settle. That doesn’t require legal advice.

Callister to Callin Wild. You are to negotiate a settlement asap.

However todays appeal has been a non event with advocates for both DHSC and Ransom telling the Deemster they didn’t know why they were there or arguing about, and that the AG’s employee has already given a witness statement about her involvement in 4 different classes of disclosure 

[Boo Gay'n]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

They should be two separate things.

Comin to Callister. Bring this shit show to an end and settle. That doesn’t require legal advice.

Callister to Callin Wild. You are to negotiate a settlement asap.

However todays appeal has been a non event with advocates for both DHSC and Ransom telling the Deemster they didn’t know why they were there or arguing about, and that the AG’s employee has already given a witness statement about her involvement in 4 different classes of disclosure 

Not many lay people will understand the subtleties of legal privilege, but reports like this on the MR website must surely add fuel to the ongoing PR disaster that this case has become for the DHSC and Isle of Man Government?

[Roger Mexico]

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

They should be two separate things.

Comin to Callister. Bring this shit show to an end and settle. That doesn’t require legal advice.

Callister to Callin Wild. You are to negotiate a settlement asap.

In reality no Minister is going to make any sort of intervention in a legal case without getting legal advice.  How else would they know that they have the vires?  And in any case the AG actually sits in on CoMin meetings, so they'll get his legal advice anyway.  

It's long been observed that the role of AG is conflicted in all sorts of ways (even before the most recent bouts of empire-building).  But it suits a lot of people to keep it that way.

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

In reality no Minister is going to make any sort of intervention in a legal case without getting legal advice.  How else would they know that they have the vires?  And in any case the AG actually sits in on CoMin meetings, so they'll get his legal advice anyway.  

It's long been observed that the role of AG is conflicted in all sorts of ways (even before the most recent bouts of empire-building).  But it suits a lot of people to keep it that way.

That’s really simplistic. And a minister telling the departments advocate to settle wouldn’t raise a vires problem unless the advocates had specifically advised there was no case to answer.

Given liability is judicially established it’s now down to quantum only.

Quantum does of course depend on the aggravation, or not, of the disclosure problems. But it shouldn’t be difficult, at this stage to establish and advise a ball park range. X if everything goes our way, Y if everything goes against us. Worst & best case scenarios. Especially as there is a costs risk in the worst case scenario.

Ransom’s team will have figures for both ends of the range also.

CW should have done that already. It’s part of the duty to advise.

You'd hope, given that the current AG has a conflict, that he wouldn’t be advising either in CoMin or to the DHSC.