Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

The Conservative Party - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

On 20/11/2020 at 10:52, West 77 said:

What utter nonsense.  Any boss has to motivate or pressure the people they lead in order to get the best results. Our Armed Forces would be weak in they didn't have tough leadership throughout the ranks. Those wimps working in Government departments in Whitehall should be thankful they have it so cushy and are not in the army. 

 

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

A good point.  Priti Patel was advised to use her husband's surname before she became a MP to help further her political career.  At the very least it's bad manners to change the surname  Priti Patel chooses to use.

So you've gone from justifying Patel shouting, swearing and humiliating her civil servants who she knows cannot answer back in a way that's worthy of the contempt in which she treats others, to becoming observant around the delicacies of other forum members changing Patel's surname. All in the space of a few posts....

I can't be the only one here to see that  your analysis lacks any basic credibility or consistency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iansheff said:

So according to the article below Boris tried to get the author of the report to tone the report down, now why would he do that unless he knew the report was correct?

Boris Johnson 'tried and failed to get investigator to water down' Patel bullying report - Mirror Online

"Downing Street did not deny suggestions that Mr Johnson had tried and failed to convince Sir Alex Allan to tone down his conclusion that Patel's behaviour amounted to bullying as he found instances of shouting and swearing."

 

Boris was not going to get rid of her, he has a cabinet of yes men/women and can't afford to lose any of them with some dissention in his party's ranks.

It almost makes you wonder why he bothered to try to water down the report, if he's going to ignore its conclusions anyway.

Most likely because he knows just how damaging the report is, and how it reveals his contempt for the truth.

Neither he or Patel are coming out of this well. Deservedly so.

Edited by Mister M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mister M said:

It almost makes you wonder why he bothered to try to water down the report, if he's going to ignore its conclusions anyway.

Most likely because he knows just how damaging the report is, and how it reveals his contempt for the truth.

Neither he or Patel are coming out of this well. Deservedly so.

She won’t get sacked, it was unintentional.

 

Although if memory serves the government paid out £25k after an aid took her bullying to an employment tribunal in 2017, you’d have thought she’d have known what bullying is. The fact numerous tories are falling over themselves to defend her after breaking the ministerial code is horrible but not unsurprising. Said code of standards also is quite implicit on making sure we don’t break international laws and treaties and Johnson is quite happy to shove that in the bin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

She won’t get sacked, it was unintentional.

 

Although if memory serves the government paid out £25k after an aid took her bullying to an employment tribunal in 2017, you’d have thought she’d have known what bullying is. The fact numerous tories are falling over themselves to defend her after breaking the ministerial code is horrible but not unsurprising. Said code of standards also is quite implicit on making sure we don’t break international laws and treaties and Johnson is quite happy to shove that in the bin.

I think Patel has anger issues. Even in interviews on TV she can come across as brittle. Though I bet she's careful not to rile those who she knows will answer back & tell her what a **** she's being.

As you say claims of bullying have followed her from DWP, International Development and now the Home Office. She knows what she is doing is vile. 

Having someone as weak as Johnson as her boss will be her undoing, if she continues with her nastiness.

I will say in her favour though that others who've worked with her said in recent months there has been an improvement in her behaviour. I've no idea if that's sincere, or even permanent. Hope for the sake of people working round her that  it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mister M said:

 

So you've gone from justifying Patel shouting, swearing and humiliating her civil servants who she knows cannot answer back in a way that's worthy of the contempt in which she treats others, to becoming observant around the delicacies of other forum members changing Patel's surname. All in the space of a few posts....

I can't be the only one here to see that  your analysis lacks any basic credibility or consistency. 

I've been consistent throughout. I've acknowledged there is a fine line between pressurising an individual to do their job better and bullying an individual to do their job better. Priti Patel hasn't been found guilty in a court of law of bullying anyone. However, the Home Office isn't a Kindergarten and I don't have a problem if a highly paid worker in that department is bullied in order to encourage them to do the job properly which the taxpayer is paying them to do. I don't believe Priti Patel is doing a bad as Home Secretary which is the main reason I don't want to see her lose her job. I don't have a problem with Boris giving Priti Patel the benefit of the doubt in order for her to remain as Home Secretary.

 

I find it rather amusing you criticise me for calling another user out for changing Priti Patel's surname when a forum moderator has made it perfectly clear on the Labour Party thread that changing the surname of Keir Starmer is unacceptable. Surely if it's unacceptable to change the surname of a Labour politician then it's unacceptable to change the surname of a Tory politician? Or do you believe there should be different posting rules on the Conservative Party thread to the Labour Party thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per warnings on other threads, please refer to politicians by their correct names, not by derogatory (or any other) nicknames.

 

Thank you.

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, West 77 said:

I've been consistent throughout. I've acknowledged there is a fine line between pressurising an individual to do their job better and bullying an individual to do their job better. Priti Patel hasn't been found guilty in a court of law of bullying anyone. However, the Home Office isn't a Kindergarten and I don't have a problem if a highly paid worker in that department is bullied in order to encourage them to do the job properly which the taxpayer is paying them to do. I don't believe Priti Patel is doing a bad as Home Secretary which is the main reason I don't want to see her lose her job. I don't have a problem with Boris giving Priti Patel the benefit of the doubt in order for her to remain as Home Secretary.

 

I find it rather amusing you criticise me for calling another user out for changing Priti Patel's surname when a forum moderator has made it perfectly clear on the Labour Party thread that changing the surname of Keir Starmer is unacceptable. Surely if it's unacceptable to change the surname of a Labour politician then it's unacceptable to change the surname of a Tory politician? Or do you believe there should be different posting rules on the Conservative Party thread to the Labour Party thread?

You were consistent in your disparagement of senior civil servants who didn't like being bullied. Such as:

On 20/11/2020 at 10:28, West 77 said:

It's a sad reflection of the snowflake society we live him that grown men in important highly paid jobs are complaining a little woman has bullied them. The position of Home Secretary is a role for someone that acts tough. We need more  strong leaders in the cabinet like Pritti Patel and less wimps working in Government departments. 

So you disagree with the Prime Minister when he wrote that bullying is wrong in his foreword to the Ministerial Code? You must do  if you just wrote  "I don't have a problem if a highly paid worker in that department is bullied in order to encourage them to do the job properly which the taxpayer is paying them to do".

I think bullying and harassment is unacceptable in the workplace, the Prime Minister must agree with me otherwise he would change the laws and regulations relating to such behaviour in the workplace. Performance management, encouragement and professional development have all being proven to be much more effective in getting the best out of people.

 

I've no problem in calling Kier Starmer Kier Starmer because that's his name. Up until now his behaviour has commanded my respect. I've no problem calling Priti Patel Priti Patel either - not because I respect her behaviour, I don't.

What I was alluding to when you called out another poster who didn't use Priti Patel's name correctly was the complete disconnect between the respect that you demand for the Home Secretary, and your lack of empathy for victims of Patel's bullying. Look at how you refer to them in your post above: "wimps", "can't stand up to a little woman".  Priti Patel isn't a 'little woman'.  Would she thank you for referring to her in that way? Her name isn't 'little woman', it's Priti Patel. Don't be so patronising.

 

 

Edited by Mister M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting show on LBC about this today, it seems all is not quite as it seems.

The previous payout of £25k for bullying was not against Patel but a senior civil servant.

The current issue is from the permanent secretary who incorrectly briefed figures to Amber Rudd as he was going on holiday which led to her having to resign.
The argument that led to the current issue was when the permanent secretary tried to stop Patel from making public a report on child grooming by  gangs and she thought it important to get it out in the open so the victims felt they were being listened too.

He also only brought the complaints much later, I think when he had left the job.

Maajid Nawaz (not a Tory supporter by his own admission) took the view that this guy was pretty incompetent and it was more about internal politics that he brought the complaint rather than the actual bullying.

There was also the insinuation (without detailing firm evidence) that the guy was a misogynist and didn’t like having female bosses.

 

My personal take is that the position of permanent secretary is a very senior role, I would be very surprised if anyone at that level really couldn’t deal with shouting and being sworn at in an argument. 
You don’t get to that level in government or for that matter business without being able to give it out and take it back. There are far worse things somebody at that level has to deal with so I don’t believe this would be a major issue for them.

That doesn’t make it an example that should be followed BTW, but in my view not a sackable offence.

 

If she was like it with lower ranked staff that would be a different matter IMV.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullying, harrassment and coercive practices seem very familiar in the lower orders. 

The general attitude is 'if you don't like it, work somewhere else. There's plenty more where you came from....'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Bullying, harrassment and coercive practices seem very familiar in the lower orders. 

The general attitude is 'if you don't like it, work somewhere else. There's plenty more where you came from....'

So tough luck on the suicidal civil servant because she earns a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

So tough luck on the suicidal civil servant because she earns a bit?

Eh? I don't like PP much, but I haven't really been following this. If she's good at her job she should probably stay in it. Maybe a word in her ear is enough. Is she good at her job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, West 77 said:

I've been consistent throughout. I've acknowledged there is a fine line between pressurising an individual to do their job better and bullying an individual to do their job better. Priti Patel hasn't been found guilty in a court of law of bullying anyone. However, the Home Office isn't a Kindergarten and I don't have a problem if a highly paid worker in that department is bullied in order to encourage them to do the job properly which the taxpayer is paying them to do. I don't believe Priti Patel is doing a bad as Home Secretary which is the main reason I don't want to see her lose her job. I don't have a problem with Boris giving Priti Patel the benefit of the doubt in order for her to remain as Home Secretary.

 

I find it rather amusing you criticise me for calling another user out for changing Priti Patel's surname when a forum moderator has made it perfectly clear on the Labour Party thread that changing the surname of Keir Starmer is unacceptable. Surely if it's unacceptable to change the surname of a Labour politician then it's unacceptable to change the surname of a Tory politician? Or do you believe there should be different posting rules on the Conservative Party thread to the Labour Party thread?

So from the above - you condone bullying.

That's fine - at least we know who you stand beside... and any claims that anyone else is bullying will be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

It also highlights your personal moral standpoint

29 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Eh? I don't like PP much, but I haven't really been following this. If she's good at her job she should probably stay in it. Maybe a word in her ear is enough. Is she good at her job?

Absolutely - she doesn't appear good at her job - pretty pathetic really!

On 20/11/2020 at 16:43, West 77 said:

You can't say Boris isn't loyal.

Pity he wasn't loyal to his wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.