Dr Ranson vs. Isle of Man government

[Cowsham]

[Moderator note - Discussion of Dr Ranson's legal action against the IoM government split off from 'Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells' thread.]

Does anyone think this will 'just go away'?

Apparently the post office did.

Present tense is significant in my post.

That maybe but we've found that there are those that just can't let go of the bone even when that bone is going through the crusher. It happened in the IOM costing their tax payers even more when the government tried to appeal the findings and compensation given to RR -- twice !

[Bonefishblues]

Apparently the post office did.

Present tense is significant in my post.

That maybe but we've found that there are those that just can't let go of the bone even when that bone is going through the crusher. It happened in the IOM costing their tax payers even more when the government tried to appeal the findings and compensation given to RR -- twice !

The IoM Government kept it IN the public consciousness then.

[Cowsham]

Present tense is significant in my post.

That maybe but we've found that there are those that just can't let go of the bone even when that bone is going through the crusher. It happened in the IOM costing their tax payers even more when the government tried to appeal the findings and compensation given to RR -- twice !

The IoM Government kept it IN the public consciousness then.

What the IOM government did was to try to take her back into court enough times that she'd run out of money. They almost succeeded -- if it wasn't for her husband's prowess in the courts ( think he was a solicitor barrister or something ) she'd end up where every other lone claimant ends up over there, disgraced and skint. That's why it's so similar to what the PO did to the SPM's. The PO thought they could do that but turns out NOT TO 700 PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME !

[Bonefishblues]

That maybe but we've found that there are those that just can't let go of the bone even when that bone is going through the crusher. It happened in the IOM costing their tax payers even more when the government tried to appeal the findings and compensation given to RR -- twice !

The IoM Government kept it IN the public consciousness then.

What the IOM government did was to try to take her back into court enough times that she'd run out of money. They almost succeeded -- if it wasn't for her husband's prowess in the courts ( think he was a solicitor barrister or something ) she'd end up where every other lone claimant ends up over there, disgraced and skint. That's why it's so similar to what the PO did to the SPM's. The PO thought they could do that but turns out NOT TO 700 PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME !

Please stop selectively editing your posts out when you spear off at a tangent from the discussion taking place. Thanks.

ETA
But addressing this new point, aiui her case was funded by her medical association, the BMA. It's a high profile case, but I'm not seeing any particular similarity to the SPMs. Btw the appeals weren't against the decision, they appear to be more procedural/ET jurisdiction based, but I'd have to read the ET papers to fully understand these.

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre ... tleblowing

[Cowsham]

The IoM Government kept it IN the public consciousness then.

What the IOM government did was to try to take her back into court enough times that she'd run out of money. They almost succeeded -- if it wasn't for her husband's prowess in the courts ( think he was a solicitor barrister or something ) she'd end up where every other lone claimant ends up over there, disgraced and skint. That's why it's so similar to what the PO did to the SPM's. The PO thought they could do that but turns out NOT TO 700 PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME !

Please stop selectively editing your posts out when you spear off at a tangent from the discussion taking place. Thanks.

ETA
But addressing this new point, aiui her case was funded by her medical association, the BMA. It's a high profile case, but I'm not seeing any particular similarity to the SPMs. Btw the appeals weren't against the decision, they appear to be more procedural/ET jurisdiction based, but I'd have to read the ET papers to fully understand these.

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre ... tleblowing

If you'd been following the case as I have you'd know she had big financial costs to cover and if she'd lost or just got exhausted she would've lost everything.

The summary of the judgment on the first page reads as follows: “The unanimous Decision of the Tribunal is that Dr Ranson is entitled to be compensated for being unfairly dismissed due to her protected disclosures and is awarded compensation (gross) in the total sum of £3,198,754.00. Additionally, the DHSC must pay 70% of Dr Ranson’s costs”

[Cowsham]

The IoM Government kept it IN the public consciousness then.

What the IOM government did was to try to take her back into court enough times that she'd run out of money. They almost succeeded -- if it wasn't for her husband's prowess in the courts ( think he was a solicitor barrister or something ) she'd end up where every other lone claimant ends up over there, disgraced and skint. That's why it's so similar to what the PO did to the SPM's. The PO thought they could do that but turns out NOT TO 700 PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME !

Please stop selectively editing your posts out when you spear off at a tangent from the discussion taking place. Thanks

What have I selectively edited ?

[Bonefishblues]

What the IOM government did was to try to take her back into court enough times that she'd run out of money. They almost succeeded -- if it wasn't for her husband's prowess in the courts ( think he was a solicitor barrister or something ) she'd end up where every other lone claimant ends up over there, disgraced and skint. That's why it's so similar to what the PO did to the SPM's. The PO thought they could do that but turns out NOT TO 700 PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME !

Please stop selectively editing your posts out when you spear off at a tangent from the discussion taking place. Thanks.

ETA
But addressing this new point, aiui her case was funded by her medical association, the BMA. It's a high profile case, but I'm not seeing any particular similarity to the SPMs. Btw the appeals weren't against the decision, they appear to be more procedural/ET jurisdiction based, but I'd have to read the ET papers to fully understand these.

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre ... tleblowing

If you'd been following the case as I have you'd know she had big financial costs to cover and if she'd lost or just got exhausted she would've lost everything.

The summary of the judgment on the first page reads as follows: “The unanimous Decision of the Tribunal is that Dr Ranson is entitled to be compensated for being unfairly dismissed due to her protected disclosures and is awarded compensation (gross) in the total sum of £3,198,754.00. Additionally, the DHSC must pay 70% of Dr Ranson’s costs”

The case was in her name. That's why costs were awarded to her. She was funded by the BMA

[Bonefishblues]

What the IOM government did was to try to take her back into court enough times that she'd run out of money. They almost succeeded -- if it wasn't for her husband's prowess in the courts ( think he was a solicitor barrister or something ) she'd end up where every other lone claimant ends up over there, disgraced and skint. That's why it's so similar to what the PO did to the SPM's. The PO thought they could do that but turns out NOT TO 700 PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME !

Please stop selectively editing your posts out when you spear off at a tangent from the discussion taking place. Thanks

What have I selectively edited ?

You removed your original post to which I responded.

[Cowsham]

It was and she was (The total amount included £1.46m for future loss of earnings and almost £750,000 for future pension loss)

Doubtful how relevant those numbers are to subpostmaster earnings?

I've no idea if employment tribunal guidelines read over to civil law more generally or criminal law.

No, a senior public healthcare professional's earnings are completely irrelevant, as I pointed out when Cowsham used them as a multiplier for the SPMs' compensation.

ETs primarily judge compliance with employment law.

I didn't use her earnings -- they only figured in part assessing her loss due to actions of the IOM government. Her losses got substantially bigger as the IOM tried to discredit her so future work / job prospects and mental health were affected by the continual appeals.

[Bonefishblues]

Doubtful how relevant those numbers are to subpostmaster earnings?

I've no idea if employment tribunal guidelines read over to civil law more generally or criminal law.

No, a senior public healthcare professional's earnings are completely irrelevant, as I pointed out when Cowsham used them as a multiplier for the SPMs' compensation.

ETs primarily judge compliance with employment law.

I didn't use her earnings -- they only figured in part assessing her loss due to actions of the IOM government. Her losses got substantially bigger as the IOM tried to discredit her so future work / job prospects and mental health were affected by the continual appeals.

You said

If each got what Rosland Ranson got ie £3.2m then the government ( and now Fugitsu ) will be out of pocket by at least £2.5B

I consider this to be much worse than what Ranson suffered.

But you say you didn't use her earnings?

I confess I'm puzzled at why you introduced her case if not to set a benchmark or some kind of equivalence.

[Cowsham]

Please stop selectively editing your posts out when you spear off at a tangent from the discussion taking place. Thanks.

ETA
But addressing this new point, aiui her case was funded by her medical association, the BMA. It's a high profile case, but I'm not seeing any particular similarity to the SPMs. Btw the appeals weren't against the decision, they appear to be more procedural/ET jurisdiction based, but I'd have to read the ET papers to fully understand these.

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre ... tleblowing

If you'd been following the case as I have you'd know she had big financial costs to cover and if she'd lost or just got exhausted she would've lost everything.

The summary of the judgment on the first page reads as follows: “The unanimous Decision of the Tribunal is that Dr Ranson is entitled to be compensated for being unfairly dismissed due to her protected disclosures and is awarded compensation (gross) in the total sum of £3,198,754.00. Additionally, the DHSC must pay 70% of Dr Ranson’s costs”

The case was in her name. That's why costs were awarded to her. She was funded by the BMA

She was personally out a load of court costs -- the BMA only supported her but only after she had got the evidence and faced tribunals to prove her innocence. This cost a fortune of money. The BMA only support you if you can prove you have more than a 50% chance of winning so this had to be done first.

They did get involved at the end. In the IOM they'd only have limited power and access to information cos it's a different country -- not uk not eu it has it's own Parliament -- oldest in the world so you are at their mercy when stuff like this goes down.

The IOM government are used to winning by draining it's opponents via the justice system just like the PO.

The BMA are now chasing Kathryn Magson the woman who was involved in misleading health ministers and closing ranks with the IOM government.

There are other people linked to this scandal who the BMA are chasing down it's gone uk wide now. Magson, the woman who Ranson reported to, was stopping information getting through to ministers but then when they figured they'd got it wrong they tried to cover it up. Extremely like what was happening at the PO.

It could have been so simple to sort out and cost much less if politicians and DHSC had been honest.

[Cowsham]

No, a senior public healthcare professional's earnings are completely irrelevant, as I pointed out when Cowsham used them as a multiplier for the SPMs' compensation.

ETs primarily judge compliance with employment law.

I didn't use her earnings -- they only figured in part assessing her loss due to actions of the IOM government. Her losses got substantially bigger as the IOM tried to discredit her so future work / job prospects and mental health were affected by the continual appeals.

You said

If each got what Rosland Ranson got ie £3.2m then the government ( and now Fugitsu ) will be out of pocket by at least £2.5B

I consider this to be much worse than what Ranson suffered.

But you say you didn't use her earnings?

I confess I'm puzzled at why you introduced her case if not to set a benchmark or some kind of equivalence.

She didn't earn that -- she was awarded that.

I thought you meant "earnings" which were part of how her solicitors came up with a ball park figure for her losses ie what she would earn till she retired plus all the damages to her reputation, mental health, court costs, loss of earnings for the years she was contracted to etc etc etc which if I recall correctly was around £7m. This sort of went against her in public opinion but was only a means to an end ie getting to an award figure.

[Cowsham]

No, a senior public healthcare professional's earnings are completely irrelevant, as I pointed out when Cowsham used them as a multiplier for the SPMs' compensation.

ETs primarily judge compliance with employment law.

I didn't use her earnings -- they only figured in part assessing her loss due to actions of the IOM government. Her losses got substantially bigger as the IOM tried to discredit her so future work / job prospects and mental health were affected by the continual appeals.

You said

If each got what Rosland Ranson got ie £3.2m then the government ( and now Fugitsu ) will be out of pocket by at least £2.5B

I consider this to be much worse than what Ranson suffered.

But you say you didn't use her earnings?

I confess I'm puzzled at why you introduced her case if not to set a benchmark or some kind of equivalence.

If each of the SPM's got 3.2m that's 800 x 3.2m = 2.5B

What's so hard to understand about that?

[Carlton green]

I didn't use her earnings -- they only figured in part assessing her loss due to actions of the IOM government. Her losses got substantially bigger as the IOM tried to discredit her so future work / job prospects and mental health were affected by the continual appeals.

You said

If each got what Rosland Ranson got ie £3.2m then the government ( and now Fugitsu ) will be out of pocket by at least £2.5B

I consider this to be much worse than what Ranson suffered.

But you say you didn't use her earnings?

I confess I'm puzzled at why you introduced her case if not to set a benchmark or some kind of equivalence.

If each of the SPM's got 3.2m that's 800 x 3.2m = 2.5B

What's so hard to understand about that?

That assumes considered parity between SPM and RR, a parity that to my mind is uncertain. Given the sums involved and the strength of the PO‘s legal team I’d have thought compensation awards would be even more fiercely contested - and out of court settlements likely.

[Bonefishblues]

You said

If each got what Rosland Ranson got ie £3.2m then the government ( and now Fugitsu ) will be out of pocket by at least £2.5B

I consider this to be much worse than what Ranson suffered.

But you say you didn't use her earnings?

I confess I'm puzzled at why you introduced her case if not to set a benchmark or some kind of equivalence.

If each of the SPM's got 3.2m that's 800 x 3.2m = 2.5B

What's so hard to understand about that?

That assumes considered parity between SPM and RR, a parity that to my mind is uncertain. Given the sums involved and the strength of the PO‘s legal team I’d have thought compensation awards would be even more fiercely contested - and out of court settlements likely.

Indeed. It's just a random number, like any other random number. It's wise for us to wait to see what is proposed and the accompanying process than simply fire out numbers because Jeremy Vine, or a victim in the IoM.