The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Mister M 1,606]

44 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

 What ever occupation your in,  It doesn't matter how good at your job you are,  if proven you have commited a sackable offence of any kind then you should be sacked, no excuses,  the people your offending might also be good at their jobs too,  so why should they have to suffer.

Good point well made.

The defences for Priti Patel by supporters from the right wing cabal of ministers and commentators have been funny though. 

"It's because she's a woman", "it's because she's from an ethnic minority". 

These are the people that for the last x number of years having been denying the existence of gender or race as an explanation for anything; and that people who seek to explore disadvantage in employment or race and gender discrimination are somehow 'liberal elite', 'cultural Marxists', 'wooly minded trendy Wendies', or whatever term of abuse the Daily Telegraph deems appropriate. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

35 minutes ago, West 77 said:

In the case of Priti Patel it's not been proven that she has committed a sackable offence.  The evidence against her is just opinions. In the real World outside of the public sector a business has to take the commercial implications into account whether to terminate an employee who has committed a sackable offence. The reality is an employee who is excellent at their job is likely to be treated more leniently than an employee who is poor at their job. 

It was literally proven by an enquiry.

[ECCOnoob 1,017]

55 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

It was literally proven by an enquiry.

What sackable offence was proven?   

 

Even the enquiry itself used the words "on occasions"   "could be"   "described as"  bullying.....  That is not the same as proven WAS bullying.   

 

Get the basic facts right.  

 

You also seem to be selectively overlooking the other parts of the inquiry conclusions. 

 

It also states that Patel was never made aware or given feedback on her behaviour or allegations at the time.... The government department "was not as flexible as it could have been" in responding to her requests and failed to be more supportive.... which the inquiry deemed was a contributor to this situation.

 

I doubt very much that any alleged inadvertent breach of any code of conduct  exacerbated by a Department deliberately being obtuse to their new managements, failing to support their new leader and failing to actually inform said leader that their behaviour was deemed unacceptable or in breach at the time of allegations is stable grounds for dismissal.

 

Some form of reprimand, review and apology yes, but automatic dismissal?   Doubtful.  Even less so with so many grey areas, counter allegations and spin.  

 

There are two sides to every story.  

 

I certainly can't say whether the Home Secretary was a bully or not but neither can they. What I can say from a outsiders point of view is there appears to be a bandwagon rolling, as usual fuelled by the bloodthirsty press and windbags pushing their agenda.   

 

Both sides have performed poorly with their dramatic actions and grandstanding.

 

As others have said I suspect a quiet sideways move might be on the cards but this will happen time and time again to somebody else from any political leaning . 

 

The power and ego battle between Senior Civil Servants and Ministers over who they think is in charge of running the country is not a new story.  Nor are the smears, dirty tricks and media manipulation.  

 

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

3 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

What sackable offence was proven?   

 

Even the enquiry itself used the words "on occasions"   "could be"   "described as"  bullying.....  That is not the same as proven WAS bullying.   

 

Get the basic facts right.  

 

You also seem to be selectively overlooking the other parts of the inquiry conclusions. 

 

It also states that Patel was never made aware or given feedback on her behaviour or allegations at the time.... The government department "was not as flexible as it could have been" in responding to her requests and failed to be more supportive.... which the inquiry deemed was a contributor to this situation.

 

I doubt very much that any alleged inadvertent breach of any code of conduct  exacerbated by a Department deliberately being obtuse to their new managements, failing to support their new leader and failing to actually inform said leader that their behaviour was deemed unacceptable or in breach at the time of allegations is stable grounds for dismissal.

 

Some form of reprimand, review and apology yes, but automatic dismissal?   Doubtful.  Even less so with so many grey areas, counter allegations and spin.  

 

There are two sides to every story.  

 

I certainly can't say whether the Home Secretary was a bully or not but neither can they. What I can say from a outsiders point of view is there appears to be a bandwagon rolling, as usual fuelled by the bloodthirsty press and windbags pushing their agenda.   

 

Both sides have performed poorly with their dramatic actions and grandstanding.

 

As others have said I suspect a quiet sideways move might be on the cards but this will happen time and time again to somebody else from any political leaning . 

 

The power and ego battle between Senior Civil Servants and Ministers over who they think is in charge of running the country is not a new story.  Nor are the smears, dirty tricks and media manipulation.  

 

 

Everyone but her fault. Civil servants are wrong, media wrong Patel not wrong (“it wasn’t intentional” - really? I’ll remember that if I ever get pinched for speeding), Boris always always right. 

 

It would have been a sacking offence even under May. I don’t know what you’ve got to do to fired in the current set up. Be anti brexit, or say something snippy about his best gal I suppose.

[ECCOnoob 1,017]

14 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Everyone but her fault. Civil servants are wrong, media wrong Patel not wrong (“it wasn’t intentional” - really? I’ll remember that if I ever get pinched for speeding), Boris always always right. 

 

It would have been a sacking offence even under May. I don’t know what you’ve got to do to fired in the current set up. Be anti brexit, or say something snippy about his best gal I suppose.

Stop with the rhetoric and read what I have posted.   

 

On this occasion it is NOT entirely her fault.  The Inquiry says that in the same conclusions that you also chose to selectively mention from.

 

My opinion is that it is not an automatic sacking as there is too much ambiguity.  

 

Now, let's try and debate like adults. Put your clear agenda to one side and explain why you are so certain a case is proven.  

Edited November 22, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

Stop with the rhetoric and read what I have posted.   

 

On this occasion it is NOT entirely her fault.  The Inquiry says that in the same conclusions that you also chose to selectively mention from.

 

My opinion is that it is not an automatic sacking as there is too much ambiguity.  

 

Now, let's try and debate like adults. Put your clear agenda to one side and explain why you are so certain a case is proven.  

What’s my agenda?

 

But what would help is the release of the full report. Boris doesn’t want to release the full report. I wonder why? 

[banjodeano 28]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

In the case of Priti Patel it's not been proven that she has committed a sackable offence.  The evidence against her is just opinions. In the real World outside of the public sector a business has to take the commercial implications into account whether to terminate an employee who has committed a sackable offence. The reality is an employee who is excellent at their job is likely to be treated more leniently than an employee who is poor at their job. 

Please tell me that you dont employ people...

[PRESLEY 1,222]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

In the case of Priti Patel it's not been proven that she has committed a sackable offence.  The evidence against her is just opinions. In the real World outside of the public sector a business has to take the commercial implications into account whether to terminate an employee who has committed a sackable offence. The reality is an employee who is excellent at their job is likely to be treated more leniently than an employee who is poor at their job. 

If two people commit the same sackable offence,  one stays because he/she is better at their job, the person not as good gets the sack.  Surely that can't be right.

[Pettytom 1]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

What sackable offence was proven?   

 

 

 

Do you mean this time she was investigated, or last time?

 

Because in both cases she was found to have breached the ministerial code. That’s automatic resignation/ sacking territory for any  government, willing to uphold standards in public life. 

 

Theresa May had the moral fibre to sack Patel. Johnson didn’t. 
 

Not so long ago, you were happy to accept the findings of the EHRC report, in order to have a go at Jeremy Corbyn. You don’t seem  as keen to accept the findings of Sir Alex Allen. Does it not suit your political outlook?

 

Johnson has behaved as disgracefully as Patel. Sadly, we are stuck with both of them

for now. We deserve better.

[Pettytom 1]

5 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Have you not read ECCOnoob's recent posts regarding the inquiry?

I have.

 

Why do you ask?

Is it ask a random question day?

[banjodeano 28]

4 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I've only stated what happens in the real World.  What difference does it make whether I employ people or not. 

 

I'm not saying it's right only that it happens. 

It doesnt make any difference at all, i just wondered.

If you were an employer you sound like you would be really horrible with your workers, but if you prefer not to answer that's up to you

[Pettytom 1]

2 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I asked because ECCOnoob provided ample evidence from the inquiry report to support it is not proven that Priti Patel has bullied anyone.

The inquiry concluded that Patel had breached the ministerial code. Every single other minister ever, who has breached the ministerial code, has lost their job. All of them.

 

That’s all you need to know.

 

Except for the fact that “unintentional bullying” doesn’t exist.