Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 19, 2020, 06:50:05 PM
-
Colour me shocked!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55007122
-
You don't say.
-
Will be interesting to see if preserving the message of the Ministerial Code is considered more important politically than whatever it is Priti Patel has to offer in terms of achieving the results the majority of the electorate seem to want to see.
She was re-elected MP for her constituency at the last election with a larger majority than she had before. No idea if this is because she is considered a good representative for the constituency who deals well with constituency issues.
A bill has been passed to end free movement of people. Those wanting to come into the UK to work will need to apply for permission in advance. They will be awarded points for a job offer at the appropriate skill level, if they speak English, and for meeting the appropriate salary threshold. Visas will be awarded to those who gain enough points.
The government is also introducing special schemes to enable more scientists, academics, investors, entrepreneurs, and health and care workers to come to the UK easily.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/immigration-act-receives-royal-assent-free-movement-to-end-on-31-december-2020
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076
The standards advisor quits after Johnson backs Patel.
-
What a fuckin shower (Nan's voice - Catherine Tate)
-
I see Pritti Patel is staying in post. Does that make her a Pritt Stick?
(Wish it were my own - but saw it elsewhere)
-
Newsthump's take:
https://newsthump.com/2020/11/20/school-bully-unintentionally-takes-dinner-money-from-five-pupils-and-punches-another
-
I see Pritti Patel is staying in post. Does that make her a Pritt Stick?
(Wish it were my own - but saw it elsewhere)
Or even a dip stick, whatever deffo not 'pretty'.
She has been told off; just heard on the news she's been told she mustn't shout and swear at staff :o. Smacked wrists.
-
She was told that from the start:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnSZ3JyWEAAf4P1.png
- letter from Rutnam suggesting errors in Allan's investigation.
-
I wonder how much of this row is based on the fact that the resignation that appears to have triggered it was by a white male career civil servant and the accusations are against an elected non-white female?
-
I wonder how much of this row is based on the fact that the resignation that appears to have triggered it was by a white male career civil servant and the accusations are against an elected non-white female?
None.
Do you really think that politicians (not specifically Patel) are shrinking violets when they are trying to get things done?
The fact that JOhnson asked for the report to be made "more palatable" in itself raises significant questions.
In fact I think it likely knowing that they would be open to accusations of racism that they would be extremely sure of their facts before proceeding with this.
Anyhow, how does "I wasn't aware I was breaking the speed limit, so can you let me off officer" wash? Do you think it's a goer as a defence?
-
I suspect that she has survived without any significant sanction has more to do with internal Tory party management than anything else: Johnson can't risk getting rid of someone who is supported by the lunatic fringe of his own party: at least May had the guts to sack her when Patel was going behind May's back, and of late Patel has been criticised for briefing against lawyers who are simply doing their job.
Of course the main issue is that the UK currently has an incompetent and corrupt government headed by a narcissistic liar - they are living down to our expectations.
-
There was not a deep analysis of why she was sacked by May. That affair was about her assuming the mantel of someone higher up irrespective of who she was dealing with.
This should be pointed out by the media now. Instead of framing everything as if the Dear leader transformed everything last December.
-
Will be interesting to see if preserving the message of the Ministerial Code is considered more important politically than whatever it is Priti Patel has to offer in terms of achieving the results the majority of the electorate seem to want to see.
She was re-elected MP for her constituency at the last election with a larger majority than she had before. No idea if this is because she is considered a good representative for the constituency who deals well with constituency issues.
A bill has been passed to end free movement of people. Those wanting to come into the UK to work will need to apply for permission in advance. They will be awarded points for a job offer at the appropriate skill level, if they speak English, and for meeting the appropriate salary threshold. Visas will be awarded to those who gain enough points.
The government is also introducing special schemes to enable more scientists, academics, investors, entrepreneurs, and health and care workers to come to the UK easily.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/immigration-act-receives-royal-assent-free-movement-to-end-on-31-december-2020
I note your accurate description of the Australian immigration system's requirements, as long as the racists are kept away from it, it sounds fine to me.
ippy.
-
I suspect that she has survived without any significant sanction has more to do with internal Tory party management than anything else: Johnson can't risk getting rid of someone who is supported by the lunatic fringe of his own party: at least May had the guts to sack her when Patel was going behind May's back, and of late Patel has been criticised for briefing against lawyers who are simply doing their job.
Of course, the main issue is that the UK currently has an incompetent and corrupt government headed by a narcissistic liar - they are living down to our expectations.
Could this Forum possibly move any further Left without actually affiliating itself to the Communist Party of Vlad Putin!
NO! I am NOT Conservative. I just happen to think that just about every single member of both Houses is there purely in their own interests which, just occasionally, happen to gel with some members of the electorate of one party or the other.
I think that I could lie just as easily, fluently and convincingly as any M P, current or previous, or future, if I were getting paid what they do!
Owslswing
)O(
-
I note your accurate description of the Australian immigration system's requirements, as long as the racists are kept away from it, it sounds fine to me.
ippy.
I was just making the point that she seems to have completed one of the things the Tories were elected to do so if she is likely to get them public support, it is unlikely that they will cut her loose for swearing at her civil service staff. I wonder what her swearing consisted of - are we talking "bloody" or was there actual profanity involved. Anyway, the independent ethics adviser concluded that Ms Patel’s behaviour met the definition of bullying adopted by the civil service and therefore she is in breach of the code. The PM unsurprisingly has decided she wasn't in breach.
-
None.
Do you really think that politicians (not specifically Patel) are shrinking violets when they are trying to get things done?
The fact that JOhnson asked for the report to be made "more palatable" in itself raises significant questions.
In fact I think it likely knowing that they would be open to accusations of racism that they would be extremely sure of their facts before proceeding with this.
Anyhow, how does "I wasn't aware I was breaking the speed limit, so can you let me off officer" wash? Do you think it's a goer as a defence?
Yes the report seems to have been written in a way that makes it seem as thought it's down to perception whether bullying took place rather than something objective like the speed limit.
"The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals"
"The definition of bullying adopted by the civil service accepts that legitimate, reasonable and constructive criticism of a worker’s performance will not amount to bullying. It defines bullying as intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition."
Yet the report does not seem to say there were instances of behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office. And if Philip Rutnam is saying Priti Patel was warned about her behaviour presumably he followed procedure and there are records somewhere in an HR file of some kind of appraisal, warning for bullying?
-
What a fuckin shower (Nan's voice - Catherine Tate)
Right on!
Funny to think we used to be expelled or at least suspended from school for swearing at anyone.
-
'If you can't do your job without bullying, you can't do your job' - Richard Osman
-
Very true.
-
'If you can't do your job without bullying, you can't do your job' - Richard Osman
Ye Gods!
I have no doubt that. with some judicious digging, I could find a dozen quotes to contradict yours, but I am on the forum to speak to you, not to someone else who happens to agree with you or even me (hence, perhaps my Godawful errors)!
As I have said, everyone on the forum has, from various posts, shown that if the Torys were paragons of virtue, like the Labour party seems to be to all here, they still be lost them under a mile-high pile of shit!
Clearly questioning Labour even from an "All politicians are shite position" is unacceptable and I leave politics to those who know best!
-
As I have said, everyone on the forum has, from various posts, shown that if the Torys were paragons of virtue, like the Labour party seems to be to all here, they still be lost them under a mile-high pile of shit!
I don't think you are reading posts very thoroughly if you think that all posters here think that the Labour party are paragons of virtue. I can think of several off the top of my head who don't (I'll not name names unless you really want me too) and a few who are enthusiastic about the Labour party, myself included.
What you seem to be missing however, is that the Tories are in power and have been for a decade so naturally any fault picking would tend to focus on them. They are the ones most affecting our lives for good or ill.
I would argue predominantly for ill at present.
-
Ye Gods!
I have no doubt that. with some judicious digging, I could find a dozen quotes to contradict yours
I'd be interested to see if you could find a job where bullying is a necessary part.
-
Teachers used to be good at it, they raised it to an art form.
-
Looks like the chap conducting the enquiry was blocked from interviewing a key witness.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/21/officials-blocked-access-to-witness-in-priti-patel-inquiry
-
Teachers used to be good at it, they raised it to an art form.
I was very unfit after losing a lot of weight suddenly due to being ill for a few days (high temperature etc) in the summer term when I was at university, so I joined the OTC the following term after the summer holidays in order to be yelled and sworn at by the RSM to run round parade grounds and over assault courses etc. I figured that would definitely get me fit as I would be too scared to disobey. So I think they being shouty and scary is a necessary part of the job of an RSM.
-
I was just making the point that she seems to have completed one of the things the Tories were elected to do so if she is likely to get them public support, it is unlikely that they will cut her loose for swearing at her civil service staff. I wonder what her swearing consisted of - are we talking "bloody" or was there actual profanity involved. Anyway, the independent ethics adviser concluded that Ms Patel’s behaviour met the definition of bullying adopted by the civil service and therefore she is in breach of the code. The PM unsurprisingly has decided she wasn't in breach.
I have to admit I have sworne to myself occasionally when reading or hearing remainer comments conveyed and it is quiet well known there's a not so insignificant number of remainers performing tasks on the behalf of the civil service, if this is true I'd be more surprised if Ms Patel hadn't used the odd expletive here and there.
It's I suppose a bit like that old saying that if you throw mud it sticks and those throwing the mud, of course, have never heard this saying before?
ippy.
-
I have to admit I have sworne to myself occasionally when reading or hearing remainer comments conveyed and it is quiet well known there's a not so insignificant number of remainers performing tasks on the behalf of the civil service, if this is true I'd be more surprised if Ms Patel hadn't used the odd expletive here and there.
It's I suppose a bit like that old saying that if you throw mud it sticks and those throwing the mud, of course, have never heard this saying before?
ippy.
This reads as if you think it is ok to bully people at work who you are in a position of power over because you jusldisagree with their politics
-
I was very unfit after losing a lot of weight suddenly due to being ill for a few days (high temperature etc) in the summer term when I was at university, so I joined the OTC the following term after the summer holidays in order to be yelled and sworn at by the RSM to run round parade grounds and over assault courses etc. I figured that would definitely get me fit as I would be too scared to disobey. So I think they being shouty and scary is a necessary part of the job of an RSM.
That's normal in the military up to a point and in peacetime nobody has to be in the forces, or the cadets. If they don't like it they can leave.
I was thinking of school where kids are captive. It didn't happen to me but I do remember other girls regularly being picked on and humiliated by teachers, always girls who had no defence. Sheer bullying. It was so unnecessary.
-
That's normal in the military up to a point and in peacetime nobody has to be in the forces, or the cadets. If they don't like it they can leave.
I was thinking of school where kids are captive. It didn't happen to me but I do remember other girls regularly being picked on and humiliated by teachers, always girls who had no defence. Sheer bullying. It was so unnecessary.
That doesn't sound good. I don't remember witnessing bullying by teachers.
This is an interesting article from 2019 about bullying in the civil service.
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/culture-change-dame-sue-owen-on-bullying-in-the-civil-service-existential-crises-and-what-shell-miss-about-whitehall
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/20/priti-patel-home-secretary-behaviour-adviser-standards-quit
-
I know the media has its opinions but for future reference the advice on the internet on workplace bullying eg. on gov website, NHS website, ACAS website, worksmart.org.uk is that:
(1) Discrimination or bullying actions can range from unintentional misunderstandings and lack of awareness through to deliberate and malicious acts. People should approach the person they feel is bullying them for an informal chat as the bully may not realise the effect their behaviour is having on people.
(2)The consequences of being found to have bullied someone is not automatic sacking. Options range from informal resolution such as a chat, mediation, counselling for the bully, to disciplinary procedure if the bullying is of a more serious nature. The penalty will depend on the seriousness of the allegations as well as any mitigating factors, for example, whether you apologised promptly and took steps to change your behaviour, your previous disciplinary record and any special circumstances. The penalty can range from dismissal without notice or notice pay through to a formal warning, demotion, loss of bonus, compulsory relocation or transfer, or compulsory training in topics like anger management or diversity. You have a right of appeal.
Therefore, it seems a bit strange to say that the point recorded in the report that Priti Patel's bullying was unintentional is irrelevant, as this is contrary to all of the employer and employee guidance on bullying in the workplace.
-
I know the media has its opinions but for future reference the advice on the internet on workplace bullying eg. on gov website, NHS website, ACAS website, worksmart.org.uk is that:
(1) Discrimination or bullying actions can range from unintentional misunderstandings and lack of awareness through to deliberate and malicious acts. People should approach the person they feel is bullying them for an informal chat as the bully may not realise the effect their behaviour is having on people.
(2)The consequences of being found to have bullied someone is not automatic sacking. Options range from informal resolution such as a chat, mediation, counselling for the bully, to disciplinary procedure if the bullying is of a more serious nature. The penalty will depend on the seriousness of the allegations as well as any mitigating factors, for example, whether you apologised promptly and took steps to change your behaviour, your previous disciplinary record and any special circumstances. The penalty can range from dismissal without notice or notice pay through to a formal warning, demotion, loss of bonus, compulsory relocation or transfer, or compulsory training in topics like anger management or diversity. You have a right of appeal.
Therefore, it seems a bit strange to say that the point recorded in the report that Priti Patel's bullying was unintentional is irrelevant, as this is contrary to all of the employer and employee guidance on bullying in the workplace.
Patel's previous disciplinary record is appalling. She was allowed to resign for operating an alternative government.
She has had adequate mercy already.Still, better to keep someone who has run an alternative Government close rather than out there.
-
Patel's previous disciplinary record is appalling. She was allowed to resign for operating an alternative government.
She has had adequate mercy already.Still, better to keep someone who has run an alternative Government close rather than out there.
Maybe. My problem is I'm struggling to care that some civil servants got shouted at occasionally at work.
-
Maybe. My problem is I'm struggling to care that some civil servants got shouted at occasionally at work.
You don't remember that the Prittster's previous breach of the ministerial code was not about that?
-
Of course it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Johnson would protect somebody who uses the tactics of intimidation:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7247921/Journalist-Boris-Johnson-discussed-having-beaten-says-Tory-runner-unfit-PM.html
-
Whilst reading about this case and the background to the ministerial code, this was referenced: the seven principles of public life. Hard to see how Patel meets these, albeit that could be said of others too (and not just elected politicians).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2
-
Thank you for this, Gordon.
Does anyone else recall the occasion when - on camera - a tv journalist questioned a Johnson about (I think - perhaps someone can provide correct information)) a homeless person and showed a photo on his mobile phone to Johnson? Johnson simply snatched the phone from the journalist and put it in his pocket and dismissed the journalist.
I think that, had it happened to me - recorded on camera, I would have made a formal complaint.
I'm not trying to derail this discussion, just wondering whether the Priti Patel situation is to be expected in the present government.
-
Thank you for this, Gordon.
Does anyone else recall the occasion when - on camera - a tv journalist questioned a Johnson about (I think - perhaps someone can provide correct information)) a homeless person and showed a photo on his mobile phone to Johnson? Johnson simply snatched the phone from the journalist and put it in his pocket and dismissed the journalist.
I think that, had it happened to me - recorded on camera, I would have made a formal complaint.
I'm not trying to derail this discussion, just wondering whether the Priti Patel situation is to be expected in the present government.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/boris-johnson-snatches-reporters-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-child-asleep-on-hospital-floor/09/12/
I think that there are aspects that were encouraged by Cumming that could be related to but given Patel's previous egregious breach of the ministerial code, it's not clear that this would be just about this govt. I don't see your question as a derail at all.
-
You don't remember that the Prittster's previous breach of the ministerial code was not about that?
I'm losing track of all her breaches. I remember she resigned /got sacked for some by Teresa May.
Are you referring to a breach, other than the current one, that she hasn't already resigned / been sacked for?
She and Boris seem to be as cavalier as each other about following rules and ethics so I'm not really surprised by any of this. We knew this from the way the Brexit campaign was conducted.
-
I'm losing track of all her breaches. I remember she resigned /got sacked for some by Teresa May.
Are you referring to a breach, other than the current one, that she hasn't already resigned / been sacked for?
She and Boris seem to be as cavalier as each other about following rules and ethics so I'm not really surprised by any of this. We knew this from the way the Brexit campaign was conducted.
Yes, I was meaning the previous breach under May.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41923007
-
Yes, I was meaning the previous breach under May.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41923007
If Priti Patel has already been sacked for that breach, can that breach still be taken into consideration when considering if there were extenuating circumstances that means she won't be sacked for this breach? Not sure how it works - as that breach was related to a lack of transparency for which she resigned, and the current breach relates to a different issue. Given the way members of the current government and their advisers have conducted themselves, would it not look a bit sexist if Priti Patel resigned if none of the men bothered to resign?
-
If Priti Patel has already been sacked for that breach, can that breach still be taken into consideration when considering if there were extenuating circumstances that means she won't be sacked for this breach? Not sure how it works - as that breach was related to a lack of transparency for which she resigned, and the current breach relates to a different issue. Given the way members of the current government and their advisers have conducted themselves, would it not look a bit sexist if Priti Patel resigned if none of the men bothered to resign?
As far as I am aware, all the other findings of a breach of the ministerial code have lead to resignations, and that's why this case is significant.
-
As far as I am aware, all the other findings of a breach of the ministerial code have lead to resignations, and that's why this case is significant.
The guidance on bullying in the work place says to try informally approaching the person and make them aware of how what they are doing is affecting you. The independent report says that this was not done and Priti was not aware that people were feeling bullied. Maybe evidence that Priti Patel was approached informally about people feeling bullied will come out in the constructive dismissal case brought by Philip Rutman, in which case this might be the push needed for her to resign.
-
The guidance on bullying in the work place says to try informally approaching the person and make them aware of how what they are doing is affecting you. The independent report says that this was not done and Priti was not aware that people were feeling bullied. Maybe evidence that Priti Patel was approached informally about people feeling bullied will come out in the constructive dismissal case brought by Philip Rutman, in which case this might be the push needed for her to resign.
Rutman has already stated that this was done but he was not approached during the investigation. Not sure that whether it was done is relevant to the finding being that Patel breached the code, and that this seems the one case where that having happened, the minister did not resign.
-
Rutman has already stated that this was done but he was not approached during the investigation. Not sure that whether it was done is relevant to the finding being that Patel breached the code, and that this seems the one case where that having happened, the minister did not resign.
I prefer evidence that it was done, rather than taking Rutnam's word for it. Maybe the evidence will come to light in the constructive dismissal trial. I don't know one way or the other about the legal procedural aspect of whether Rutnam could or could not be approached because he is involved in an on-going legal case against the government.
True - based on convention Priti Patel is supposed to resign, but I am more interested in justice than convention. In this case, if Priti Patel was not approached and spoken to about bullying then I am not sure if it is justice for her to resign, even if she is in breach of a Ministerial Code and the convention is that Ministers are supposed to resign if in breach.