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?
