The Voice of Reason

There seems to be a lot of negativity on this thread 

14 hours ago, NoTailT said:

Uhtred you cant be held responsible for the fact that the government are making such a bloody mess of so many things. We are mere truth tellers.

If anyone was previously unsure of the meaning of “sycophant”

1 minute ago, Scotty said:

I don’t think it is in anyone’s interest to identify posters either on here or on Twitter. Not quite cricket, as they say.

But neither myself or this Sea Lion character have been identified 

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Ugh.

Please stop talking in riddles. 
 

Just now, TheTeapot said:

Oh, do you not have a sense of humour then? It was just a little joke about the anti government sentiment on this site. Lighten up.

Sorry I do  have a sense of humor. Honestly can’t see the joke. Could you explain and I’ll laugh along with you, promise

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

Ah, it would appear that @The Voice of Reason is the commonly encountered “sea lion”. 

I can honestly say that I am not! 
Never heard of Sea Lion. 
How on earth have you come to that conclusion?

Interesting exchange though

2 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

You've had an account since 2007!!

Yes. Your point being?

1 hour ago, Uhtred said:

When did you retire from your former role as Editor of Pravda?

Apologies I didn’t realize it was anti government posts only

40 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

What do you think?

I don’t think it would so if I were Dr Glover I wouldn’t. But if it would exonerate me I would publish and be damned

46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Well, she would say that if she was desperate to keep the job.   But she had already resigned, so draw your own conclusions.

As I recall, you were quite disparaging, and yes, you should refer to her as Dr Glover until she invites you to do otherwise. 

Don't assume anything.  I do not know if the letter was genuine or not, but the odour around it is not very reassuring.  It probably did exist, but who sent it and what their relationship with Dr Glover is we will never know.  It could have been sent by someone in the lab, even the head of the lab, or it could have been sent by a porter in RCH.  We will never know.

46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Well, she would say that if she was desperate to keep the job.   But she had already resigned, so draw your own conclusions.

As I recall, you were quite disparaging, and yes, you should refer to her as Dr Glover until she invites you to do otherwise. 

Don't assume anything.  I do not know if the letter was genuine or not, but the odour around it is not very reassuring.  It probably did exist, but who sent it and what their relationship with Dr Glover is we will never know.  It could have been sent by someone in the lab, even the head of the lab, or it could have been sent by a porter in RCH.  We will never know.

Resigned or not  you would still want to protect your reputation. 

I didn’t assume anything that’s why I phrased it as a question. Thank you for your helpful answer.

God help us if everyone on here who is disparaged has a hissy fit. I will continue to address her as Dr Glover without waiting for an invitation to do otherwise . If an invitation comes it comes.

24 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Are you comparing Glover with a ''Lady of Pleasure''???

No

2 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Should I screenshot the WhatsApp messages? Perhaps the emails? I've asked (repeatedly) for the path lab to "officially" refute the letter publicly by press release. Unfortunately, they're bound by the rules that would get them sacked by speaking out. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

But if you did would that prove beyond doubt that the anonymous letter did not exist or was made up? 

29 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

The wise thing to have done was not to even think about reading it out. If either HRH HQ or DA MBE had any nouse between them they could have issued an internal memo to the staff concerned assuring them that all of their efforts are valued.

As Sgt Wilson would have said to Capt Mainwaring (after he was thinking of doing something outrageous).... "do you think that's wise, sir?".

I agree 

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

1. Dr Glover has reported that the testing team were mortified by the letter; they did not need reassurance, I am guessing that having worked with her they would have the measure of her. 

With due respect and to paraphrase “ she would say that wouldn’t she?”

Having been put in my place by her (“It’s Doctor Glover to you”) taken together with her self important pronouncements on this thread, I don’t imagine she is the sort of Doctor of who a subordinate could easily get the measure of .

Do I assume you believe that this letter never existed?

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Let's be clear - the reading out of the letter (the origins of which I still consider to be highly suspect) has all the hallmarks of being a calculated attempt to impugn/discredit Dr. Rachel Glover. Whether or not it was proposed by some shadowy media guru, or other Cabinet Office figure - or indeed Quayle - Ashford could simply have said 'No way am I reading this, I choose not to behave in this dishonourable and underhand way'. And yet he went ahead. This tells us much about the man. He's prepared to do it; he cannot resist pressure from whoever (I'm sure he's a puppet of Quayle...he reeks of it) and likely he's a patsy for officials too. This, dear posters, is what the Manx political community delivers up as your Health Minister. But when you look at the top job, who is surprised?

I think this is a very unfair and unwarranted slur on a man ( actually two men) who are having to make important decisions during these difficult times. Yes as H Q said on Thursday they won’t always get everything 100% right but they’ve not done so bad so far.

Re letter gate, rather than being a “calculated attempt to impugn/discredit Dr Rachel Glover” reading the letter was more to reassure the rest of her team in the light of events that their input was also appreciated, that they should not feel undervalued  and it was so much more than a one woman team. Clumsy perhaps but emotions seemed to be running high at that time, so perhaps understandable.I see no reason to believe that the letter was not genuine. And even though it was shredded (maybe somewhat unwisely I concede) there is a record available of what it contained.

This seems to be a classic example of build them up and them knock them down. From heroes to zeros in a matter of months for some. Let’s not forget the Government were being lauded so long ago ( rounds of applause outside Government building etc being mooted)

Its certainly my experience that the Government still enjoys  a lot more support in the wider community, than those  of the nay sayers and cynics contributing to this forum.

59 minutes ago, All Right said:

Yes I think most people think that way to be honest. It was sent by an employee to someone who regarded him as their superior in a work setting. It wasn’t a personal letter at all. 

But if say Doctor Glover joined the AA and selected her title from the drop down list as “Dr” (which is an option) the AA would correspond with her as Dr Glover. This would not be in her capacity as a doctor but would be a personal letter.

6 minutes ago, All Right said:

And the agreement to leave kept being extended by mutual agreement to the point that the UK a has still not actually left. 

I could have sworn that I saw on television the Union Flag being taken down from the European Council in Brussels on that date.

Of course there is a transition period, but to say Brexit has not happened and the UK has still not actually left is patently nonsense

10 hours ago, Apple said:

Brexit has not happened yet.

If you want to debate who "runs" the island then I suggest starting  a new topic.

Dr Glover is back and that is all that matters for this thread.

I don’t know whether you missed it but the UK left the European Union at 11 pm  GMT on 31st January 2020

19 minutes ago, Apple said:

Our geography allows different approaches. It's not rocket science. But, have it your way, we are a self determining nation then. That should make our choices much easier when Brexit happens then. We shall see. That is all.

Brexit has happened. Not sure what you are saying. Please explain

19 minutes ago, Apple said:

We can set it with certain parameters so as to tie in with the UK. Who determines those parameters ? 

 

Don’t know, seems like a rhetorical question.  Who? and by what mechanism?

5 minutes ago, Apple said:

No they don't I'm afraid. Most of those issues are determined off island and only enacted here when told to do so. Thats why we have to have Royal Assent.

I think most people know it but find it hard to accept. We are fast becoming , or have become, little England. 

And why have we been able to go to pubs and restaurants these last few weeks when those in England haven’t ?

Just now, Apple said:

No they don't I'm afraid. Most of those issues are determined off island and only enacted here when told to do so. Thats why we have to have Royal Assent.

I think most people know it but find it hard to accept. We are fast becoming , or have become, little England. 

Who determines the rate of income tax you pay? I think that is an important element of self determination.

7 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Surely, science, as by very definition being "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject." is fundamentally important to the decision making of politicians. Of course, look at a high profile politician like Trump, and you see what you end up with when you have a politician who sees science as optional.

It sounds to me like you have a bee in your bonnet and are trying to belittle Dr Glover as you disagree with her. Though you are right, MHKs don't just debate potholes, they consider teachers wages, decide border policy on a whim, shake some hands and shred letters too.

They also manage the economy, decide social policy, keep the Island (largely) COVID free and other important stuff

Re Dr Glover, no bee, no bonnet, although I must confess as a previous contributor has said her sense of self importance does irritate.

22 hours ago, rachomics said:

May I ask what I’m supposed to be apologising for? I would rather do science than debate potholes, the prom, flumes, teachers pay or anything else that might be on the current agenda with the words “Would the honourable member agree with me...” put before it. It’s my choice.

Well I did suggest that you should acknowledge that the working life of an MHK was more than just about debating potholes which could appear to be look like you were being flippant. You have complied somewhat grudgingly by including the debate on teachers pay which you may think seem to add a bit of gravitas to your understanding of the role of an MHK. There was no request for an apology from me just a request that you should acknowledge that the role of an MHK is more than debating potholes. 
Then you try and deflect attention from this discussion by bringing up the archaic nature of the way the Court goes about its business.

It is indeed your choice to practice science and you may be quite good at it but like sports etc it should be kept out of politics (and please don’t protest that it was not you who brought it into it)

Perhaps this whole business can now be put to bed and you can accept the thanks due for  your contribution in these difficult times

6 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I can't actually think of anything to say right now.

It’s OK