Discussion:
Statement
Add Reply
Sid Nuncius
2020-11-20 19:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.

I therefore consider this matter closed.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
John Ashby
2020-11-20 19:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
I'm calling for the immediate release of the full report from the police
investigation and I note that the DI in charge of it has resigned from
the lodg*H*H*H*Hforce.

john
Sam Plusnet
2020-11-20 21:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One might almost get the impression that being 'close' to Number 10
means having the protection of a magical force shield that deflects...
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter
2020-11-20 22:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
It has long been my belief that we should be governed by laws, not by
people. My apologies if I'm repeating myself.
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Steve Hague
2020-11-21 07:09:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
It has long been my belief that we should be governed by laws, not by
people.  My apologies if I'm repeating myself.
I rarely use a hammer to apply batter. In my experience, a spoon is better.
BrritSki
2020-11-21 10:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Alternatively, smug Sir Humphreys who have been getting away with
idleness and egregious oversights and errors (Windrush anyone ?) for
years, express performative outrage at Minister who after endless
frustrations shouts at them to pull their effing fingers out a few
times. Made far worse by the fact that said Minister is an uppity Asian
woman of course. They then try to oust her from her job, as they have
others before.

Waife (a former HR professional) points out that there was no process to
highlight her behaviour after (alleged) previous incidents so that she
could adress it, and that IHO the gravity of the offence(s) do not merit
summary dismissal.

YOMV

PS Ms Patel would like to make clear that her bush has not been bruised
at any time, and nor have any other people's bushes.
Mike McMillan
2020-11-21 11:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Alternatively, smug Sir Humphreys who have been getting away with
idleness and egregious oversights and errors (Windrush anyone ?) for
years, express performative outrage at Minister who after endless
frustrations shouts at them to pull their effing fingers out a few
times. Made far worse by the fact that said Minister is an uppity Asian
woman of course. They then try to oust her from her job, as they have
others before.
Waife (a former HR professional) points out that there was no process to
highlight her behaviour after (alleged) previous incidents so that she
could adress it, and that IHO the gravity of the offence(s) do not merit
summary dismissal.
YOMV
PS Ms Patel would like to make clear that her bush has not been bruised
at any time, and nor have any other people's bushes.
Ummm, ..... her ‘Bush’.... would that be her privets?
IGMC
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
Serena Blanchflower
2020-11-21 15:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Alternatively, smug Sir Humphreys who have been getting away with
idleness and egregious oversights and errors (Windrush anyone ?) for
years, express performative outrage at Minister who after endless
frustrations shouts at them to pull their effing fingers out a few
times. Made far worse by the fact that said Minister is an uppity Asian
woman of course. They then try to oust her from her job, as they have
others before.
I had had similar thougths about it, before this week's report. I would
be amazed if, on her way up the greasy pole, PP hasn't had to deal with
any number of white, Oxbridge educated gents (both civil servants and
politicians) patronising her and doing their best to ignore her. It
would certainly require forceful behaviour, on occasions, to make her
point and to make things happen.

I did also wonder whether her behaviour would prove to be anything
which, if done by one of the aforesaid white, Oxbridge educated gents,
would be considered bullying behaviour.

From what I've heard this week though, I've changed my view and think
it sounds as if she was, very much, guilty as charged.
Post by BrritSki
Waife (a former HR professional) points out that there was no process to
highlight her behaviour after (alleged) previous incidents so that she
could adress it, and that IHO the gravity of the offence(s) do not merit
summary dismissal.
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned. Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions. Astoundingly, he also says that he
wasn't questioned about her by the Cabinet Office investigation.

<https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1329868233122455560>

It's also hard to believe that she was unaware of the fact that there
had been complaints about her behaviour in two previous departments,
especially as one of these had resulted in a £25,000 pay-off. These
should have given her some clue that there might have been a problem she
needed to address. One incidence could be bad luck or a clash of
personalities but three (at least), in three different departments looks
much more like a pattern.
--
Best wishes, Serena
When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further
introduction. (Mark Twain)
BrritSki
2020-11-21 15:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Waife (a former HR professional) points out that there was no process
to highlight her behaviour after (alleged) previous incidents so that
she could adress it, and that IHO the gravity of the offence(s) do not
merit summary dismissal.
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned.  Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions.
Really ? Was it documented before witnesses in a proper process, or
something he just remembered ?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Astoundingly, he also says that he
wasn't questioned about her by the Cabinet Office investigation.
It would be astounding if it were true.
Serena Blanchflower
2020-11-21 18:55:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Waife (a former HR professional) points out that there was no process
to highlight her behaviour after (alleged) previous incidents so that
she could adress it, and that IHO the gravity of the offence(s) do
not merit summary dismissal.
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned.  Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions.
Really ?  Was it documented before witnesses in a proper process, or
something he just remembered ?
Like you, I don't have any inside information on this. I suspect (but
don't know for certain) that the only official process for disciplining
the Home Secretary is through the Cabinet Office, rather than via civil
servants. I don't know how official his discussions with her were
though or if they were documented.
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Astoundingly, he also says that he wasn't questioned about her by the
Cabinet Office investigation.
It would be astounding if it were true.
I would be surprised if it wasn't, purely because it's a statement which
could so easily be rebutted by anyone involved with the CO
investigation. I am not aware of anyone attempting to do so.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
BrritSki
2020-11-21 19:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Astoundingly, he also says that he wasn't questioned about her by the
Cabinet Office investigation.
It would be astounding if it were true.
I would be surprised if it wasn't, purely because it's a statement which
could so easily be rebutted by anyone involved with the CO
investigation.  I am not aware of anyone attempting to do so.
I was more meaning whether Rutnam's statement was true. I wonder if
he'll come up with some corroboration.
Serena Blanchflower
2020-11-21 19:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Astoundingly, he also says that he wasn't questioned about her by
the Cabinet Office investigation.
It would be astounding if it were true.
I would be surprised if it wasn't, purely because it's a statement
which could so easily be rebutted by anyone involved with the CO
investigation.  I am not aware of anyone attempting to do so.
I was more meaning whether Rutnam's statement was true. I wonder if
he'll come up with some corroboration.
That's what I was talking about, as well.
--
Best wishes, Serena
I love people who make me laugh. I honestly think it's the thing I like
most, to laugh. It cures a multitude of ills. It's probably the most
important thing in a person. (Audrey Hepburn)
John Ashby
2020-11-21 20:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Astoundingly, he also says that he wasn't questioned about her by
the Cabinet Office investigation.
It would be astounding if it were true.
I would be surprised if it wasn't, purely because it's a statement
which could so easily be rebutted by anyone involved with the CO
investigation.  I am not aware of anyone attempting to do so.
I was more meaning whether Rutnam's statement was true. I wonder if
he'll come up with some corroboration.
That's what I was talking about, as well.
It does appear to be true, and his questioning was blocked by
"government officials" for "legal reasons".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/21/officials-blocked-access-to-witness-in-priti-patel-inquiry

john
Peter
2020-11-22 20:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Astoundingly, he also says that he wasn't questioned about her by
the Cabinet Office investigation.
It would be astounding if it were true.
I would be surprised if it wasn't, purely because it's a statement
which could so easily be rebutted by anyone involved with the CO
investigation.  I am not aware of anyone attempting to do so.
I was more meaning whether Rutnam's statement was true. I wonder if
he'll come up with some corroboration.
Corroboration that something didn't happen? If he was questioned, the
questioner should have kept a record (and Rutnam should have been asked
to sign that record). So Rutnam would be taking a great risk if he was
knowingly uttering a falsehood.
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Sid Nuncius
2020-11-21 22:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Alternatively, smug Sir Humphreys who have been getting away with
idleness and egregious oversights and errors (Windrush anyone ?) for
years, express performative outrage at Minister who after endless
frustrations shouts at them to pull their effing fingers out a few
times. Made far worse by the fact that said Minister is an uppity
Asian woman of course. They then try to oust her from her job, as they
have others before.
I had had similar thougths about it, before this week's report.  I would
be amazed if, on her way up the greasy pole, PP hasn't had to deal with
any number of white, Oxbridge educated gents (both civil servants and
politicians) patronising her and doing their best to ignore her.  It
would certainly require forceful behaviour, on occasions, to make her
point and  to make things happen.
I did also wonder whether her behaviour would prove to be anything
which, if done by one of the aforesaid white, Oxbridge educated gents,
would be considered bullying behaviour.
From what I've heard this week though, I've changed my view and think
it sounds as if she was, very much, guilty as charged.
<lw>
Precisely my view, better put than I have managed.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2020-11-22 09:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned.  Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions.  Astoundingly, he also says that he
wasn't questioned about her by the Cabinet Office investigation.
Even more astoundingly, neither was Priti Patel interviewed according to
today's Telegraph:
"
It emerged this weekend that not one of the allegations had been put to
Ms Patel, while she had never met or spoken to Sir Alex Allan, the
Whitehall civil servant who carried out the eight-month investigation
into Ms Patel.

Sources also confirmed that some civil servants complained if Ms Patel
tried to contact them over weekends to ask for support if crises erupted.

One source said: "National security is not 9-til-5", adding that on some
weekends Ms Patel had found that "she was driving the ship completely".
They added: "That is changing."

A former adviser said: "The snowflakes in the civil service would
regularly complain about working even five minutes more than their
allotted hours.

"Their chief complaint appears to be having to work over a weekend when
they’re on call, despite this being their job."

Under the new way of working, Ms Patel will be given a dedicated team of
officials who she can lean on for support at weekends when other civil
servants have gone home.

The top ranks of civil servants at the Home Office will be required to
submit themselves to performance reviews.

The Home Office has agreed to allowing Ms Patel to question junior
officials directly who might have day-to-day knowledge of a particular
challenge, rather than relying on information fed through more senior
officials.

One source said some civil servants had been "quite precious" about Ms
Patel's attempts to speak to staff on the frontline of the Home Office's
work.
"

I think if I'd experienced that sort of workforce I's also have
suggested they were all f***ing useless as well.

Times also quotes a friend saying she'd never encountered such appalling
racism and misogyny as at the HO.
Sid Nuncius
2020-11-22 19:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned.  Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions.  Astoundingly, he also says that he
wasn't questioned about her by the Cabinet Office investigation.
Even more astoundingly, neither was Priti Patel interviewed according to
"
It emerged this weekend that not one of the allegations had been put to
Ms Patel, while she had never met or spoken to Sir Alex Allan, the
Whitehall civil servant who carried out the eight-month investigation
into Ms Patel.
Sources also confirmed that some civil servants complained if Ms Patel
tried to contact them over weekends to ask for support if crises erupted.
One source said: "National security is not 9-til-5", adding that on some
weekends Ms Patel had found that "she was driving the ship completely".
They added: "That is changing."
A former adviser said: "The snowflakes in the civil service would
regularly complain about working even five minutes more than their
allotted hours.
"Their chief complaint appears to be having to work over a weekend when
they’re on call, despite this being their job."
Under the new way of working, Ms Patel will be given a dedicated team of
officials who she can lean on for support at weekends when other civil
servants have gone home.
The top ranks of civil servants at the Home Office will be required to
submit themselves to performance reviews.
The Home Office has agreed to allowing Ms Patel to question junior
officials directly who might have day-to-day knowledge of a particular
challenge, rather than relying on information fed through more senior
officials.
One source said some civil servants had been "quite precious" about Ms
Patel's attempts to speak to staff on the frontline of the Home Office's
work."
I think if I'd experienced that sort of workforce I's also have
suggested they were all f***ing useless as well.
Times also quotes a friend saying she'd never encountered such appalling
racism and misogyny as at the HO.
I have no difficulty in believing any of that. I have had people like
that working under my management and one in particular was not just
****ing useless, he was a dickhead, a damaging influence and an
all-round pain in the @rse. I know that such people will often call any
criticism or admonition bullying, sometimes because they seem to believe
it, sometimes wholly disingenuously.[1] I'm also sure that PP will have
encountered plenty of racism and misogyny in the Civil Service.

However, the central issue for me is the independent report and the PM's
refusal to accept it. I don't know what went on in the Home Office, so
I can't make my own objective judgement. That's why the PM himself
appointed his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code to look into
these things - an adviser who seems to be widely respected for his
integrity. The PM himself also wrote in the Code that bullying will not
be tolerated. For him now to refuse to accept the findings of his
independent adviser that bullying took place is, to me at least,
disturbing and damaging of public confidence in politicians in general,
at a time when that confidence is something we really, really need.

There do seem to be parallels with Jeremy Corbyn's assertion that there
was no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party but then denying the
result of inquiries and taking little or no action when anti-Semitism
occurred. I was extremely critical of him for that and I am similarly
critical of Boris Johnson's behaviour in this case.


[1] I dealt with him without shouting or swearing, btw, however much and
however often I felt like it.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Serena Blanchflower
2020-11-22 21:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned.  Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions.  Astoundingly, he also says that he
wasn't questioned about her by the Cabinet Office investigation.
Even more astoundingly, neither was Priti Patel interviewed according
"
It emerged this weekend that not one of the allegations had been put
to Ms Patel, while she had never met or spoken to Sir Alex Allan, the
Whitehall civil servant who carried out the eight-month investigation
into Ms Patel.
Sources also confirmed that some civil servants complained if Ms Patel
tried to contact them over weekends to ask for support if crises erupted.
One source said: "National security is not 9-til-5", adding that on
some weekends Ms Patel had found that "she was driving the ship
completely". They added: "That is changing."
A former adviser said: "The snowflakes in the civil service would
regularly complain about working even five minutes more than their
allotted hours.
"Their chief complaint appears to be having to work over a weekend
when they’re on call, despite this being their job."
Under the new way of working, Ms Patel will be given a dedicated team
of officials who she can lean on for support at weekends when other
civil servants have gone home.
The top ranks of civil servants at the Home Office will be required to
submit themselves to performance reviews.
The Home Office has agreed to allowing Ms Patel to question junior
officials directly who might have day-to-day knowledge of a particular
challenge, rather than relying on information fed through more senior
officials.
One source said some civil servants had been "quite precious" about Ms
Patel's attempts to speak to staff on the frontline of the Home
Office's work."
I think if I'd experienced that sort of workforce I's also have
suggested they were all f***ing useless as well.
Times also quotes a friend saying she'd never encountered such
appalling racism and misogyny as at the HO.
I have no difficulty in believing any of that.  I have had people like
that working under my management and one in particular was not just
****ing useless, he was a dickhead, a damaging influence and an
criticism or admonition bullying, sometimes because they seem to believe
it, sometimes wholly disingenuously.[1]  I'm also sure that PP will have
encountered plenty of racism and misogyny in the Civil Service.
However, the central issue for me is the independent report and the PM's
refusal to accept it.  I don't know what went on in the Home Office, so
I can't make my own objective judgement.  That's why the PM himself
appointed his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code to look into
these things - an adviser who seems to be widely respected for his
integrity.  The PM himself also wrote in the Code that bullying will not
be tolerated.  For him now to refuse to accept the findings of his
independent adviser that bullying took place is, to me at least,
disturbing and damaging of public confidence in politicians in general,
at a time when that confidence is something we really, really need.
There do seem to be parallels with Jeremy Corbyn's assertion that there
was no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party but then denying the
result of inquiries and taking little or no action when anti-Semitism
occurred.  I was extremely critical of him for that and I am similarly
critical of Boris Johnson's behaviour in this case.
[1] I dealt with him without shouting or swearing, btw, however much and
however often I felt like it.
<languid wave>

Thanks Sid, it's now your turn to say just what I wanted to, but much
better than I could have.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist,
but you have ceased to live.
(Mark Twain)
BrritSki
2020-11-23 08:49:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Except it now comes out that this wasn't the case and that she was
warned.  Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary who
resigned because of her, has said that he had warned her about her
behaviour on multiple occasions.  Astoundingly, he also says that he
wasn't questioned about her by the Cabinet Office investigation.
Even more astoundingly, neither was Priti Patel interviewed according
"
It emerged this weekend that not one of the allegations had been put
to Ms Patel, while she had never met or spoken to Sir Alex Allan, the
Whitehall civil servant who carried out the eight-month investigation
into Ms Patel.
Sources also confirmed that some civil servants complained if Ms Patel
tried to contact them over weekends to ask for support if crises erupted.
One source said: "National security is not 9-til-5", adding that on
some weekends Ms Patel had found that "she was driving the ship
completely". They added: "That is changing."
A former adviser said: "The snowflakes in the civil service would
regularly complain about working even five minutes more than their
allotted hours.
"Their chief complaint appears to be having to work over a weekend
when they’re on call, despite this being their job."
Under the new way of working, Ms Patel will be given a dedicated team
of officials who she can lean on for support at weekends when other
civil servants have gone home.
The top ranks of civil servants at the Home Office will be required to
submit themselves to performance reviews.
The Home Office has agreed to allowing Ms Patel to question junior
officials directly who might have day-to-day knowledge of a particular
challenge, rather than relying on information fed through more senior
officials.
One source said some civil servants had been "quite precious" about Ms
Patel's attempts to speak to staff on the frontline of the Home
Office's work."
I think if I'd experienced that sort of workforce I's also have
suggested they were all f***ing useless as well.
Times also quotes a friend saying she'd never encountered such
appalling racism and misogyny as at the HO.
I have no difficulty in believing any of that.  I have had people like
that working under my management and one in particular was not just
****ing useless, he was a dickhead, a damaging influence and an
criticism or admonition bullying, sometimes because they seem to believe
it, sometimes wholly disingenuously.[1]  I'm also sure that PP will have
encountered plenty of racism and misogyny in the Civil Service.
However, the central issue for me is the independent report and the PM's
refusal to accept it.  I don't know what went on in the Home Office, so
I can't make my own objective judgement.  That's why the PM himself
appointed his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code to look into
these things - an adviser who seems to be widely respected for his
integrity.  The PM himself also wrote in the Code that bullying will not
be tolerated.  For him now to refuse to accept the findings of his
independent adviser that bullying took place is, to me at least,
disturbing and damaging of public confidence in politicians in general,
at a time when that confidence is something we really, really need.
There do seem to be parallels with Jeremy Corbyn's assertion that there
was no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party but then denying the
result of inquiries and taking little or no action when anti-Semitism
occurred.  I was extremely critical of him for that and I am similarly
critical of Boris Johnson's behaviour in this case.
[1] I dealt with him without shouting or swearing, btw, however much and
however often I felt like it.
It's certainly not a good look, but it seems a bit strange to me; if we
are to believe the rumours that BJ wants her gone in the reshuffle why
didn't he just force her resignation now ?

I also think it is very strange that neither of the 2 key players were
interviewed. It's just about believable that Rutnam was ignored on the
basis of possible prejudice of his constructive dismissal claim, but why
ignore Patel as well ? And the findings of themselves will influence
that case. Maybe that is why the decision was taken, to make the case a
foregone conclusion is she'd had to resign.

Or maybe there's more in the report or to come out elsewhere - as I said
before, where is the corroborating evidence that Rutnam warned her
multiple times ? If that's not forthcoming it throws doubt on his claims
and makes the lack of process even more telling. Is shouting and
swearing bullying as well ? If it's every day and/or against just 1
person certainly, but if more general and less frequent ? How often
before it becomes bullying ?

Or maybe it's just a line in the sand to say that we are not going to
stand any more crap from the Civil Service. We know how they've behaved
since the time of Yes, Minister (and probably before), obstructive and
always getting their own way, but it seems that it's gone to a new level
in the last few years, possibly as a result of Brexit, but it was bad
before that.

Can you imagine how the HO would react though if they claim another
Ministerial resignation after Blunkett and Rudd and the other lesser
officials ? It would just give them carte blanche to continue to behave
as they wish.

It is certainly true that standards in public life have dropped
dramatically, if they were ever as high as we suppose. But it's not just
Ministers, it's leaky civil servants too or downright acts of defiance
like the dossier that Rutnam passed on behind Patel's back. Or Sedwill
who doesn't seem to me to be following the rules on what he can say
after leaving office.

It's a mess and I don't know what the solution is but I'd also add
respectfully Sid that our anecdotes about incompetent staff or
"bullying" managers are on a completely different scale to a hugely
important department of state that is clearly failing in many areas and
where the entire organisation seems to have been against their minister
for years, even before you add in misogyny and racism.
krw
2020-11-23 09:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Or maybe there's more in the report or to come out elsewhere - as I said
before, where is the corroborating evidence that Rutnam warned her
multiple times ?
You want proof that Rutnam is incompetent - if there is no contemporary
file note that he gave advice to the Minister that such language and
communication with staff is not acceptable in this day and age - then
there is proof of the point.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-11-23 13:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 at 08:49:25, BrritSki <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
[]
Post by BrritSki
are to believe the rumours that BJ wants her gone in the reshuffle why
didn't he just force her resignation now ?
[]
At the most fundamental level, can a resignation be forced? I know this
form of words is often used, but if it's forced, is it a resignation
(rather than a sacking)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anybody who thinks there can be unlimited growth in a static, limited
environment, is either mad or an economist. - Sir David Attenborough, in
Radio Times 10-16 November 2012
Sid Nuncius
2020-11-23 19:21:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snippage for brevity>
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
However, the central issue for me is the independent report and the
PM's refusal to accept it.  I don't know what went on in the Home
Office, so I can't make my own objective judgement.  That's why the PM
himself appointed his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code to
look into these things - an adviser who seems to be widely respected
for his integrity.  The PM himself also wrote in the Code that
bullying will not be tolerated.  For him now to refuse to accept the
findings of his independent adviser that bullying took place is, to me
at least, disturbing and damaging of public confidence in politicians
in general, at a time when that confidence is something we really,
really need.
There do seem to be parallels with Jeremy Corbyn's assertion that
there was no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party but then
denying the result of inquiries and taking little or no action when
anti-Semitism occurred.  I was extremely critical of him for that and
I am similarly critical of Boris Johnson's behaviour in this case.
[1] I dealt with him without shouting or swearing, btw, however much
and however often I felt like it.
It's certainly not a good look, but it seems a bit strange to me; if we
are to believe the rumours that BJ wants her gone in the reshuffle why
didn't he just force her resignation now ?
I also think it is very strange that neither of the 2 key players were
interviewed. It's just about believable that Rutnam was ignored on the
basis of possible prejudice of his constructive dismissal claim, but why
ignore Patel as well ? And the findings of themselves will influence
that case. Maybe that is why the decision was taken, to make the case a
foregone conclusion is she'd had to resign.
Or maybe there's more in the report or to come out elsewhere - as I said
before, where is the corroborating evidence that Rutnam warned her
multiple times ? If that's not forthcoming it throws doubt on his claims
and makes the lack of process even more telling. Is shouting and
swearing bullying as well ?  If it's every day and/or against just 1
person certainly, but if more general and less frequent ?  How often
before it becomes bullying ?
Or maybe it's just a line in the sand to say that we are not going to
stand any more crap from the Civil Service. We know how they've behaved
since the time of Yes, Minister (and probably before), obstructive and
always getting their own way, but it seems that it's gone to a new level
in the last few years, possibly as a result of Brexit, but it was bad
before that.
Can you imagine how the HO would react though if they claim another
Ministerial resignation after Blunkett and Rudd and the other lesser
officials ? It would just give them carte blanche to continue to behave
as they wish.
It is certainly true that standards in public life have dropped
dramatically, if they were ever as high as we suppose. But it's not just
Ministers, it's leaky civil servants too or downright acts of defiance
like the dossier that Rutnam passed on behind Patel's back. Or Sedwill
who doesn't seem to me to be following the rules on what he can say
after leaving office.
It's a mess and I don't know what the solution is but I'd also add
respectfully Sid that our anecdotes about incompetent staff or
"bullying" managers are on a completely different scale to a hugely
important department of state that is clearly failing in many areas and
where the entire organisation seems to have been against their minister
for years, even before you add in misogyny and racism.
Again, I'm sure some, possibly all of that is true. As I say, I don't
know one way or the other, but I certainly find it plausible. However,
for me it is overridden by this: for the PM to make the rules and
appoint someone he presumably trusts to oversee them, and then to be
seen to override both rules and that appointee is tremendously damaging
to public trust in government. He should not have done it, IMO.
Plainly we disagree on this - and fair enough.

It does seem that the Code and its implementation need to be modified -
quite possibly in a way which takes account of all you say. Until it
is, ministers, including the PM, should adhere to the rules as they
exist, just as the rest of us are expected to do in our working and
private lives.

And I didn't mean to imply any sort of equivalence between my minor
troubles with a few teachers and the relationship between Her Majesty's
Secretary Of State For Home Affairs and the Civil Service. I just meant
to illustrate that I accept that accusations of bullying from staff may
sometimes be spurious.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2020-11-23 21:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Plainly we disagree on this - and fair enough.
'Nuff said MOPMOB.
Peter
2020-11-23 21:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
<snippage for brevity>
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
However, the central issue for me is the independent report and the
PM's refusal to accept it.  I don't know what went on in the Home
Office, so I can't make my own objective judgement.  That's why the
PM himself appointed his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code
to look into these things - an adviser who seems to be widely
respected for his integrity.  The PM himself also wrote in the Code
that bullying will not be tolerated.  For him now to refuse to accept
the findings of his independent adviser that bullying took place is,
to me at least, disturbing and damaging of public confidence in
politicians in general, at a time when that confidence is something
we really, really need.
There do seem to be parallels with Jeremy Corbyn's assertion that
there was no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party but then
denying the result of inquiries and taking little or no action when
anti-Semitism occurred.  I was extremely critical of him for that and
I am similarly critical of Boris Johnson's behaviour in this case.
[1] I dealt with him without shouting or swearing, btw, however much
and however often I felt like it.
It's certainly not a good look, but it seems a bit strange to me; if
we are to believe the rumours that BJ wants her gone in the reshuffle
why didn't he just force her resignation now ?
I also think it is very strange that neither of the 2 key players were
interviewed. It's just about believable that Rutnam was ignored on the
basis of possible prejudice of his constructive dismissal claim, but
why ignore Patel as well ? And the findings of themselves will
influence that case. Maybe that is why the decision was taken, to make
the case a foregone conclusion is she'd had to resign.
Or maybe there's more in the report or to come out elsewhere - as I
said before, where is the corroborating evidence that Rutnam warned
her multiple times ? If that's not forthcoming it throws doubt on his
claims and makes the lack of process even more telling. Is shouting
and swearing bullying as well ?  If it's every day and/or against just
1 person certainly, but if more general and less frequent ?  How often
before it becomes bullying ?
Or maybe it's just a line in the sand to say that we are not going to
stand any more crap from the Civil Service. We know how they've
behaved since the time of Yes, Minister (and probably before),
obstructive and always getting their own way, but it seems that it's
gone to a new level in the last few years, possibly as a result of
Brexit, but it was bad before that.
Can you imagine how the HO would react though if they claim another
Ministerial resignation after Blunkett and Rudd and the other lesser
officials ? It would just give them carte blanche to continue to
behave as they wish.
It is certainly true that standards in public life have dropped
dramatically, if they were ever as high as we suppose. But it's not
just Ministers, it's leaky civil servants too or downright acts of
defiance like the dossier that Rutnam passed on behind Patel's back.
Or Sedwill who doesn't seem to me to be following the rules on what he
can say after leaving office.
It's a mess and I don't know what the solution is but I'd also add
respectfully Sid that our anecdotes about incompetent staff or
"bullying" managers are on a completely different scale to a hugely
important department of state that is clearly failing in many areas
and where the entire organisation seems to have been against their
minister for years, even before you add in misogyny and racism.
Again, I'm sure some, possibly all of that is true.  As I say, I don't
know one way or the other, but I certainly find it plausible.  However,
for me it is overridden by this: for the PM to make the rules and
appoint someone he presumably trusts to oversee them, and then to be
seen to override both rules and that appointee is tremendously damaging
to public trust in government.  He should not have done it, IMO. Plainly
we disagree on this - and fair enough.
It does seem that the Code and its implementation need to be modified -
quite possibly in a way which takes account of all you say.  Until it
is, ministers, including the PM, should adhere to the rules as they
exist,
And there needs to be someone who sees to it that they do. The very
minimum requirements is that the person who does that
* must be able (even required) to publish their findings;
* must not be influenceable by the people they may be investigating.

[My spell-checker thinks that there is no word as 'influenceable'. I
deg to biffer.]
Post by Sid Nuncius
just as the rest of us are expected to do in our working and
private lives.
And I didn't mean to imply any sort of equivalence between my minor
troubles with a few teachers and the relationship between Her Majesty's
Secretary Of State For Home Affairs and the Civil Service.  I just meant
to illustrate that I accept that accusations of bullying from staff may
sometimes be spurious.
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Vicky Ayech
2020-11-23 21:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:21:33 +0000, Sid Nuncius
Post by Sid Nuncius
<snippage for brevity>
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
However, the central issue for me is the independent report and the
PM's refusal to accept it.  I don't know what went on in the Home
Office, so I can't make my own objective judgement.  That's why the PM
himself appointed his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code to
look into these things - an adviser who seems to be widely respected
for his integrity.  The PM himself also wrote in the Code that
bullying will not be tolerated.  For him now to refuse to accept the
findings of his independent adviser that bullying took place is, to me
at least, disturbing and damaging of public confidence in politicians
in general, at a time when that confidence is something we really,
really need.
There do seem to be parallels with Jeremy Corbyn's assertion that
there was no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party but then
denying the result of inquiries and taking little or no action when
anti-Semitism occurred.  I was extremely critical of him for that and
I am similarly critical of Boris Johnson's behaviour in this case.
[1] I dealt with him without shouting or swearing, btw, however much
and however often I felt like it.
It's certainly not a good look, but it seems a bit strange to me; if we
are to believe the rumours that BJ wants her gone in the reshuffle why
didn't he just force her resignation now ?
I also think it is very strange that neither of the 2 key players were
interviewed. It's just about believable that Rutnam was ignored on the
basis of possible prejudice of his constructive dismissal claim, but why
ignore Patel as well ? And the findings of themselves will influence
that case. Maybe that is why the decision was taken, to make the case a
foregone conclusion is she'd had to resign.
Or maybe there's more in the report or to come out elsewhere - as I said
before, where is the corroborating evidence that Rutnam warned her
multiple times ? If that's not forthcoming it throws doubt on his claims
and makes the lack of process even more telling. Is shouting and
swearing bullying as well ?  If it's every day and/or against just 1
person certainly, but if more general and less frequent ?  How often
before it becomes bullying ?
Brenden May tweeted
In 1999 I had to ask a PR firm to take someone off the account of a
charity I run as she was so unbelievably rude to our junior staff,
including a receptionist who manned the phones. I never thought she'd
end up at Home Secretary...
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1232205841899687941

https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1329777091005603840

krw
2020-11-22 13:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Sir Philp Rutnam, the ex-Home Office permanent secretary
Some of us have a rather different view of the individual. He does not
appear to have been competent when at DfT given the mess over the West
Coast Franchise and certain other nonsenses. He almost certainly caused
the end of Amber Rudd's career over the Windrush effects and other events.

Apparently on his watch cocaine was found within the Home Office.

I can understand a single mistake but this man was out of his depth as a
Permanent Secretary.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
krw
2020-11-21 14:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Or to put it another way one woman's bullying is another woman telling
you to do your job effectively.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Jim Easterbrook
2020-11-21 14:52:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Or to put it another way one woman's bullying is another woman telling
you to do your job effectively.
That doesn't usually lead to a £25000 payout to avoid an employment
tribunal.

It's worrying how many people can't tell the difference between bullying
and "strong" leadership.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
krw
2020-11-22 14:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
Or to put it another way one woman's bullying is another woman telling
you to do your job effectively.
That doesn't usually lead to a £25000 payout to avoid an employment
tribunal.
It's worrying how many people can't tell the difference between bullying
and "strong" leadership.
If the Home Office leadership had been competent and well run then Ms
Patel would have ben properly supported.

Another story in today's paper - Rutnam wanted a document briefing to
cabinet which Ms Patel did not support. Rutnam took it to another
Minister for action trying to get it circulated by the back door. The
Minister concerned advised Ms Patel of Rutnam's behaviour.

Civil servants are there to serve the Ministers. If told that the paper
is not going forwards then good civil servants do not try to get another
Minister to do so. Rutnam and the team he led were clearly not good enough.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Peter
2020-11-22 15:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One curious thing is that the PM has the final say about whether a
report on a (supposed) breaking of the ministerial code is accepted or
not. But the PM is a minister, so what if the report concerns him or
her? (This is not the only case in which the person complained off is
the person who accepts or rejects the complaint. How such circumstances
be allowed?)
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Nick Odell
2020-11-22 18:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One curious thing is that the PM has the final say about whether a
report on a (supposed) breaking of the ministerial code is accepted or
not. But the PM is a minister, so what if the report concerns him or
her? (This is not the only case in which the person complained off is
the person who accepts or rejects the complaint. How such circumstances
be allowed?)
That's a very interesting point: have you thought about floating it on
uk.legal.moderated?

Nick
Peter
2020-11-22 19:54:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One curious thing is that the PM has the final say about whether a
report on a (supposed) breaking of the ministerial code is accepted or
not. But the PM is a minister, so what if the report concerns him or
her? (This is not the only case in which the person complained off is
the person who accepts or rejects the complaint. How such circumstances
be allowed?)
That's a very interesting point: have you thought about floating it on
uk.legal.moderated?
Nick
It needs someone with more standing than I. All of my contributions to
Usenet are ill-thought-out trivia, poorly expressed.
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Peter
2020-11-22 20:21:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One curious thing is that the PM has the final say about whether a
report on a (supposed) breaking of the ministerial code is accepted or
not.  But the PM is a minister, so what if the report concerns him or
her?  (This is not the only case in which the person complained off is
the person who accepts or rejects the complaint.  How such circumstances
be allowed?)
That's a very interesting point: have you thought about floating it on
uk.legal.moderated?
Nick
It needs someone with more standing than I.  All of my contributions to
Usenet are ill-thought-out trivia, poorly expressed.
Indeed, I cannot make a post without silly errors. See "How such
circumstances be allowed?" above. What I meant was "How can such
circumstances be allowed?"
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Steve Hague
2020-11-23 13:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One curious thing is that the PM has the final say about whether a
report on a (supposed) breaking of the ministerial code is accepted or
not.  But the PM is a minister, so what if the report concerns him or
her?  (This is not the only case in which the person complained off is
the person who accepts or rejects the complaint.  How such
circumstances
be allowed?)
That's a very interesting point: have you thought about floating it on
uk.legal.moderated?
Nick
It needs someone with more standing than I.  All of my contributions
to Usenet are ill-thought-out trivia, poorly expressed.
Indeed, I cannot make a post without silly errors.  See "How such
circumstances be allowed?" above.  What I meant was "How can such
circumstances be allowed?"
Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. I value your contributions,
as I'm sure we all do.
krw
2020-11-23 09:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Although a police investigation found clear evidence that I battered
someone with a hammer, the leader of The Bush Bruisers (and my good
friend), Masher Wilkins has made the judgement that I did not behave
improperly in any way.
I therefore consider this matter closed.
One curious thing is that the PM has the final say about whether a
report on a (supposed) breaking of the ministerial code is accepted or
not. But the PM is a minister, so what if the report concerns him or
her? (This is not the only case in which the person complained off is
the person who accepts or rejects the complaint. How such circumstances
be allowed?)
That's a very interesting point: have you thought about floating it on
uk.legal.moderated?
Nick
I thought I would go and read the document concerned but it says nary a
word. I assume that the answer is the Queen who would merely say "Orf
with his head".
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Loading...