Thick as 💩is too kind - try thick as 🐷🐽💩. Tell me about it- they are on my case at the moment. It’s all about making THEMSELVES looking good.
When I first started in the ‘public sector’ circa 1986. We had a Hospital Senior Medic, Senior Nurse and Hospital secretary . Each department then had a supervisor that ran the show- that was it. Even working within I cannot see what da management do.
Truly shameful, but a pretty much inevitable outcome of the process you've so eloquently described, Paul. Let's hope the answer to this is not more of the same so-called 'management'. Unfortunately, hope is still the operative word. This self-perpetuating caste will take some dislodging.
You said it - the answer will be yet more managers. No shame will be shown, for the very concept of 'managerialism'. They'll see this as an opportunity, to line their pockets.
‘Emails to cease. A line has been drawn under this. Anyone who crosses that line will face consequences.’
A paradigm of it's kind. Use of the passive voice. Imperatives verb-lessly issued. Heavily veiled threats. Lines drawn, as if they were sat at a table with straight-edges and pencils, doing Euclidean geometry. Sick, sick, sick.
May I say this. When someone is found guilty, by a properly appointed jury, having listened to barristers, on the advice of a judge, I permit myself to say they *are* (unqualified, unsubjunctivised) guilty. (I've read a lot of court judgments. Judges, and juries are seldom fools.)
I still do, but now and then, years later, it turns out they aren't. Has recently. Awful sh*t happens. I don't see any escape from the dilemma.
In this case, Letby, I'm not convinced that the fault of the managerialists was merely to protect their reputation (and salaries), but their "henhouse", as another commenter (appropriately) called it. By that I mean the sanitary conditions of a ward in which infants up to 12 weeks premature were looked after. More reputation-destroying perhaps than whether patient-facing employees were psychopaths. What's a psychopath? Just look at the stains on the ceiling.
I know nothing. But who appoints these non-entities? On precisely what grounds?
I think (could be wrong) that she was found unanimously guilty on the diabetic murder, but majority on the others? Suggests the jury were very careful in evaluating things.
I wish to apologise to all 🐽🐷out there. My offence was not intended🥹. They do not deserve to be tarred with such a henhouse label. ‘Managment’
Thick as 💩is too kind - try thick as 🐷🐽💩. Tell me about it- they are on my case at the moment. It’s all about making THEMSELVES looking good.
When I first started in the ‘public sector’ circa 1986. We had a Hospital Senior Medic, Senior Nurse and Hospital secretary . Each department then had a supervisor that ran the show- that was it. Even working within I cannot see what da management do.
Truly shameful, but a pretty much inevitable outcome of the process you've so eloquently described, Paul. Let's hope the answer to this is not more of the same so-called 'management'. Unfortunately, hope is still the operative word. This self-perpetuating caste will take some dislodging.
It absolutely will be more of the same. Lessons will have been learnt.......again.....
You said it - the answer will be yet more managers. No shame will be shown, for the very concept of 'managerialism'. They'll see this as an opportunity, to line their pockets.
Well said.
‘Emails to cease. A line has been drawn under this. Anyone who crosses that line will face consequences.’
A paradigm of it's kind. Use of the passive voice. Imperatives verb-lessly issued. Heavily veiled threats. Lines drawn, as if they were sat at a table with straight-edges and pencils, doing Euclidean geometry. Sick, sick, sick.
You perfectly capture their nihilism. All cloaked in apparent virtue.
(Blush!!)
May I say this. When someone is found guilty, by a properly appointed jury, having listened to barristers, on the advice of a judge, I permit myself to say they *are* (unqualified, unsubjunctivised) guilty. (I've read a lot of court judgments. Judges, and juries are seldom fools.)
I still do, but now and then, years later, it turns out they aren't. Has recently. Awful sh*t happens. I don't see any escape from the dilemma.
In this case, Letby, I'm not convinced that the fault of the managerialists was merely to protect their reputation (and salaries), but their "henhouse", as another commenter (appropriately) called it. By that I mean the sanitary conditions of a ward in which infants up to 12 weeks premature were looked after. More reputation-destroying perhaps than whether patient-facing employees were psychopaths. What's a psychopath? Just look at the stains on the ceiling.
I know nothing. But who appoints these non-entities? On precisely what grounds?
I think (could be wrong) that she was found unanimously guilty on the diabetic murder, but majority on the others? Suggests the jury were very careful in evaluating things.
Outstanding piece Paul.
Thanks!
Heinous NOT Hen house😵💫