Should Ashie keep his MBE for leadership of the department during the Covid-19 pandemic?

[rachomics]

5 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

It’s certainly not the style of letter that would be written by a Pathology lab scientist on behalf of colleagues.   These people are concise, measured and choose words with care and precision.

I recall Dr Glover commenting that Path lab staff had contacted her, to assure her that the letter was nothing to do with them.   Anecdotal, of course, and not possible to evidence - but added to all the other circumstantial bits and pieces, it seems plausible enough to me.   I would imagine that they would want to distance themselves from such clumsy political grandstanding - and such poor written english.

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

19 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

Absolutely yes please.

[Jarndyce]

50 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

I think that would be of great interest to many, especially given the current climate of political obfuscation, avoidance and “economy with the truth”.

[Non-Believer]

In light of Chief Minister Cannan's statement in Tynwald this morning I'd like to propose that the honour be upgraded to a knighthood.

Signed, TVOR.

[hampsterkahn]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

Yes,  do that, please.

It is definitely needed.

So much was happening some of us aren’t clear of the sequence of events.

For example,  I must have  missed  Mr A’s “ Point by point rebuttal”,  somehow.

 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

The only reason not to would be if you were planning to submit it to the Covid review and you might wait to see what the (probably under-evidenced) submissions of others were.  Holding back until they have committed themselves without seeing the details of what you had to say might be interesting!

[b4mbi]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

This would be very interesting, and presumably would support the conclusion that most reasonable people have made about this "letter" that it was made up, muck spreading to support his position.

Literally no-one shreds every letter they receive the day after they are received (and read out so publicly), and especially if said letter supports your position. Why would you, unless the letter was falsified and clearly contained fabricated untruths.

There was just no credibility to it, and he obviously had to concoct the shredding excuse so that the letter couldn't be examined in future evidence/FOI requests.

I can't recall now in relation to what was promised the "point by point rebuttal", but I think it was to another of your positions/statements. Clearly this also never arrived, leaving reasonable people to conclude he's full of shit. 

Not fit to be an MHK imho.

[rachomics]

46 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The only reason not to would be if you were planning to submit it to the Covid review and you might wait to see what the (probably under-evidenced) submissions of others were.  Holding back until they have committed themselves without seeing the details of what you had to say might be interesting!

That's a very good point and the reason why I've said nothing in 2.5 years. I've been waiting for the Inquiry (that turned out to not be an inquiry)

[Andy Onchan]

On 5/7/2023 at 7:40 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes you have your opinion about him ( which is fair enough)but you express them in such a way completely at odds with your normal posting style.

The same seems to be true of Gladys 

Is it not obvious?

As a rule I generally find that women are a better judge of character of men than men themselves.  

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

Not fit to be an MHK imho.

Given that the lot of them have also sat through Alf Cannan's speech this morning and not said a dicky-bird with the notable exception of Wannenburgh (posted elsewhere on these boards)...

None of them are.

[Zarley]

17 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Is it not obvious?

As a rule I generally find that women are a better judge of character of men than men themselves.  

That's because women have to be a better judge of character.

Not all men are dangerous predators, but enough are. Unfortunately and all too often, this is learned the hard way and usually in the teenage years, if not soon after. 

[Shake me up Judy]

17 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Is it not obvious?

As a rule I generally find that women are a better judge of character of men than men themselves.  

Are you sure it's not just that women are better at controlling this sort of narrative ? Men surrender too easily to these feminine myths. 

[Andy Onchan]

53 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Are you sure it's not just that women are better at controlling this sort of narrative ? Men surrender too easily to these feminine myths. 

Very possibly. However, I nearly always do as I'm told by 'She'! 

[Anyone]

On 5/9/2023 at 3:45 PM, rachomics said:

Something I've considered for a long time now is whether I should put up an evidenced and timelined blog post regarding the letter. Just the timeline, context and evidence that hasn't been in the public domain to this point. No opinion, no conclusion. Let people draw their own conclusions.

Go on then. I would think would be helpful to all. If it fully vindicates you , which I’m sure it will , all the better. And just might , although I doubt it , bring those who performed poorly to be , well , sacked as what happens in the commercial world when you are a bit rubbish. I’ll not hold my breath though. I’m sure Ashford will spend the rest of his life in the Keys. And be a minister again. So maybe you should leave it rather than take on the Manx establishment which despite popular denial does exist. After 35 years here I still don’t know who they are but I’ve felt their ire a few times , I think you will understand what I mean. It comes with ‘ a quiet word’, 

[Holte End]

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/govt-owes-dr-ranson-a-great-apology/

All this man has to say is 'Sorry" and he can't even do that.