Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

The Conservative Party - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Westie1889 said:

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.

 

 

 

Is this the case you're referring to Westie1889?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-bully-staff-suicide-conservative-boris-johnson-a9370731.html

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

 

I agree with Priti.

 
 

 

The ongoing stupidity of Home Secretary Priti Patel.

 

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


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

Yep that sounds like it.  Maajid said that it was a civil servant who was in the dock for the bullying but the story was leaked to the press in a way that smeared Patel.

I think the way the article is worded doesn’t make it clear, it focuses on the Patel bit without delving more into the behaviour of the civil servant delivering the message.

Also the fact the civil servant said ‘she doesn’t like your face’ doesn’t mean that’s what Patel said.

It could have come directly that way from Patel or it could just be that the person wasn’t a good fit for the team and the message was more ‘that her face didn’t fit’ - a very different thing to saying she didn’t like her face.

I don’t have a view either way really, but it doesn’t seem possible to prove conclusively either way when you look at the different information available on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Westie1889 said:

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.

 

 

 

Excellent unbiased contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours 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?

If the Sunday Times is to be believed Priti Patel will be going from the Home Office anyway: a) because of her unacceptable behaviour; and b) because of her lack of competence in the role.

I think the two are related. If people are capable of performing well in a difficult job, they have no need to scream, swear and bully.

As the old saying goes 'a bad workman always blames his tools.'

An excellent outcome altogether. 

Edited by Mister M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ECCOnoob

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.