Pritti, Posh dominatrix. she'll lock you down
Comments
-
Just one to go. I'll take it even though I'm not currently defence secretary.
She never bullied me.1 -
Correct according to Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Both deemed to be accurate according to Maggie. Must rewatch them, probably still as relevant.Pross said:
It's an interesting view that they are there to "serve" the politicians. My understanding is they are there to serve the country and help maintain continuity when Governments change.Stevo_666 said:
Interesting. And consistent with your theory that she was frustrated with civil servants who seemed to think their job was not serve their political masters, as they are paid to do.coopster_the_1st said:
Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.Stevo_666 said:
As you say I suspect there are two sides to this story, as there are to all stories. However the centre lefties don't want to know and already have their pitchforks and burning torches out - not that it'll do any good.coopster_the_1st said:
I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.kingstongraham said:Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.
Who knows, maybe this was one of the underlying reasons behind the allegations. It's not like the same group of people don't have recent history of throwing a strong-will Secretary of State under the bus for their selfish reasons.
I wonder what the reaction of some people would be if it was a female MP from an ethnic minority background in another political party who was subject to similar accusations?
This report from 6th February. Philip Rutnam resigned on 29th February alleging being bullied...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/exclusive-priti-patel-orders-officials-to-explain-status-of-grooming-gang-review/ar-BBZI0xCThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pross said:
It's an interesting view that they are there to "serve" the politicians. My understanding is they are there to serve the country and help maintain continuity when Governments change.Stevo_666 said:
Interesting. And consistent with your theory that she was frustrated with civil servants who seemed to think their job was not serve their political masters, as they are paid to do.coopster_the_1st said:
Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.Stevo_666 said:
As you say I suspect there are two sides to this story, as there are to all stories. However the centre lefties don't want to know and already have their pitchforks and burning torches out - not that it'll do any good.coopster_the_1st said:
I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.kingstongraham said:Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.
Who knows, maybe this was one of the underlying reasons behind the allegations. It's not like the same group of people don't have recent history of throwing a strong-will Secretary of State under the bus for their selfish reasons.
I wonder what the reaction of some people would be if it was a female MP from an ethnic minority background in another political party who was subject to similar accusations?
This report from 6th February. Philip Rutnam resigned on 29th February alleging being bullied...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/exclusive-priti-patel-orders-officials-to-explain-status-of-grooming-gang-review/ar-BBZI0xC
There's a subtle clue in the job description 'civil servant'...Pross said:
It's an interesting view that they are there to "serve" the politicians. My understanding is they are there to serve the country and help maintain continuity when Governments change.Stevo_666 said:
Interesting. And consistent with your theory that she was frustrated with civil servants who seemed to think their job was not serve their political masters, as they are paid to do.coopster_the_1st said:
Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.Stevo_666 said:
As you say I suspect there are two sides to this story, as there are to all stories. However the centre lefties don't want to know and already have their pitchforks and burning torches out - not that it'll do any good.coopster_the_1st said:
I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.kingstongraham said:Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.
Who knows, maybe this was one of the underlying reasons behind the allegations. It's not like the same group of people don't have recent history of throwing a strong-will Secretary of State under the bus for their selfish reasons.
I wonder what the reaction of some people would be if it was a female MP from an ethnic minority background in another political party who was subject to similar accusations?
This report from 6th February. Philip Rutnam resigned on 29th February alleging being bullied...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/exclusive-priti-patel-orders-officials-to-explain-status-of-grooming-gang-review/ar-BBZI0xC
If you don't believe me, here's a handy extract from the civil service careers website describing what they do:
https://civil-service-careers.gov.uk/about-us/
Quote: "About the Civil Service
The Civil Service delivers public services and supports the government of the day to develop and implement its policies."
Pretty clear, don't you think?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Support is different to serve. Part of that support will be advising. Serving implies doing as you're told.0
-
And servant is a servant of the country not the politicians (civil is presumably as opposed to military rather that doing it politely!).0
-
I'm sure you're familiar with two wrongs not making a right. Bercow's alleged bullying should undoubtedly have been properly investigated. I don't agree with a lot of what Andrea Leadsom stands for, but she was right on that. Which makes it disappointing that she is prepared to excuse her colleague's behaviour when politically convenient. There's also ample evidence of bullying in other parties, so it's certainly not a specifically Tory problem. The Home Office is indeed now infamous for screwing a number of things up. Clearly Patel's approach is not an effective way of improving that performance or we'd all be talking about the positive changes she had brought about rather than her not being able to get on with people.coopster_the_1st said:
I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.kingstongraham said:Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.
Who knows, maybe this was one of the underlying reasons behind the allegations. It's not like the same group of people don't have recent history of throwing a strong-will Secretary of State under the bus for their selfish reasons.
Someone outside the Home Office has looked at this and determined that the behaviour did fall outside the acceptable standards. They've already considered both sides, looked at whether there were mitigating circumstances and all the other excuses that have been put forward.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Their own job description above specifically says they are there to support the government of day. I.e. to serve them. You might like to think otherwise, but the civil service official line is as above,Pross said:And servant is a servant of the country not the politicians (civil is presumably as opposed to military rather that doing it politely!).
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not necessarily. But it definitely does not mean blocking or opposing them.Pross said:Support is different to serve. Part of that support will be advising. Serving implies doing as you're told.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
1 -
As predicted by some on this thread.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
Others will ignore it as I doesn't suit their agenda (even if its in the Guardian
) "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
I don't get the idea that the it must be one or the other. Senior civil servants in the HO being obstructive or whatever does not justify or excuse bullying. They can both be bad in different ways.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What, the 'workplace bullying is unacceptable' agenda?Stevo_666 said:
As predicted by some on this thread.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
Others will ignore it as I doesn't suit their agenda (even if its in the Guardian )1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lol at the “two sides” chat.
What on Earth do you think the independent inquiry was doing?
Next up, the two sides of Paul Gadd 🙄0 -
It's not complicated though is it? If an employee is being obstructive or unreasonably refusing to carry out a task that has been properly requested of them then you follow company disciplinary protocols. That's how it would work even in the small company I work for and I'm pretty sure, knowing what red tape is like in Government departments, that they have robust policies and procedures covering these things.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
Had Patel gone through formal channels to resolve her perceived issues I doubt people would be criticising her. I'm sure all of us with management experience on here have had to have difficult conversations with staff who aren't performing for whatever reason but if we don't follow those procedures we're opening the company up for a tribunal.1 -
rjsterry said:
How can you have such a total lack of self awareness that you need someone to point out to you that shouting and swearing at your staff is not acceptable behaviour for a Home Secretary?DeVlaeminck said:I haven't seen anyone say it's ok Pross (maybe if I read back I would) and hopefully nobody thinks that. It's more an issue of whether it's a resignation issue when the report found (according to the summary released) that:
a) she'd had no feedback about her behaviour.
b) she wasn't aware of the impact of her behaviour.
c) some of her frustrations had foundation .
Given the importance of the job for the uk and the fact (whatever our opinions) that her boss must think she's the best person there is to do it (otherwise he'd use this opportunity to let her go) I just think it falls short of requiring resignation.
I know people will call BS in her changing or on her not realising her behaviour was out of order but I'm only going in what is in the public domain.
Re. the senior member of staff bit - I think arguably it is worse for someone in a less powerful position maybe without the financial security and experience of a senior civil servant. I suspect if her bullying had been confined to lower level targets we'd never have heard of it. That's not to say bullying is ever ok though and I suspect most people have experienced some level of bullying at some time in their life.
Notwithstanding that, the idea that nobody told her she was bullying her staff is clearly disputed.
With the caveat that Rutnam has an axe to grind, he claims she had previously been made aware:
"In a statement released through the FDA union for civil servants’, Sir Phillip said: “The advice states that no feedback was given to the Home Secretary and that she was therefore unaware of issue that she might otherwise have addressed. This is not correct.
“As early as August 2019, the month after her appointment, she was advised that she must not shout and swear at staff. I advised her on a number of further occasion between September 2019 and February 2020 about the need to treat staff with respect, and to make chances to protect safety and wellbeing.”
He added: “Enormous efforts were made from top to bottom in the Home Office to support the new Home Secretary and respond to her direction, and significant achievements have resulted. The advice does not fairly reflect this.”0 -
If you are a top civil servant and you can't respond to a few fucks being thrown at you then how are you going to manage large contract negotiations or managing large numbers of staff. Let's face it plenty of your underlings will demonstrate manipulative behaviour that is equally challenging to deal with. I have found lines such as, "what did you say" in a firm manner either shuts people up and if they advance or continue then getting in their face works wonders or just the plain response, "who do you think you are talking to". Bullying has given me on for centuries and whilst it is not right yes the top 10% of earners in the civil service should be able to rebuke bullying early and nip it in the bud. It's called leading by example and having some backbone. I would be more concerned if Patel was bullying lower ranked people that have no power to respond without their managements backing. Senior people are there to deliver political priorities unless they are illegal.Pross said:
Well John80 thinks people in the top 10% of earners should be up to "having a few f**KS thrown at them" and from your own comments whilst you don't say bullying is acceptable you seem to think that even if she has bullied people she should keep her job as long as Boris thinks she's the best candidate. Notwithstanding any thoughts on what it says of out country's politicians if she is genuinely the best candidate if she has abused her position and bullied her staff (which it seems a comprehensive report has said is the case) there needs to be a sanction.DeVlaeminck said:I haven't seen anyone say it's ok Pross (maybe if I read back I would) and hopefully nobody thinks that. It's more an issue of whether it's a resignation issue when the report found (according to the summary released) that:
a) she'd had no feedback about her behaviour.
b) she wasn't aware of the impact of her behaviour.
c) some of her frustrations had foundation .
Given the importance of the job for the uk and the fact (whatever our opinions) that her boss must think she's the best person there is to do it (otherwise he'd use this opportunity to let her go) I just think it falls short of requiring resignation.
I know people will call BS in her changing or on her not realising her behaviour was out of order but I'm only going in what is in the public domain.
Re. the senior member of staff bit - I think arguably it is worse for someone in a less powerful position maybe without the financial security and experience of a senior civil servant. I suspect if her bullying had been confined to lower level targets we'd never have heard of it. That's not to say bullying is ever ok though and I suspect most people have experienced some level of bullying at some time in their life.0 -
Most senior civil servant quits because of it, independent enquiry finds the same conclusion despite his evidence not being heard and in turn the experienced lead of that also quits after Patel keeps her job.
This is after she was already binned for a prior misdemeanour which was not trivial.
Quite the career wrecker.
But sure, it’s the fault of namby pamby by civil servants.
Because her performance suggests she is a good operator otherwise 🙄🙄0 -
This is true but it should be noted that some employees are just a massive pain in the A rse and stand in the way of progress. Im not sure any of these civili servants should be in role with such delicate personalities. they should be able to manage robust behaviour. Bunch of flouncers by the sound of things. And it appears Priti has identified how to improve the way she interact and has acted.Pross said:
It's not complicated though is it? If an employee is being obstructive or unreasonably refusing to carry out a task that has been properly requested of them then you follow company disciplinary protocols. That's how it would work even in the small company I work for and I'm pretty sure, knowing what red tape is like in Government departments, that they have robust policies and procedures covering these things.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
Had Patel gone through formal channels to resolve her perceived issues I doubt people would be criticising her. I'm sure all of us with management experience on here have had to have difficult conversations with staff who aren't performing for whatever reason but if we don't follow those procedures we're opening the company up for a tribunal.
0 -
If you don’t believe the conclusion of the independent inquiry why even bother with any civil service?
What is going through your mind to dismiss it?
0 -
The bigger and obvious question should be what is it they are hiding that the Home Office are doing everything they can to stop this grooming gang report being written/published?Stevo_666 said:
Interesting. And consistent with your theory that she was frustrated with civil servants who seemed to think their job was not serve their political masters, as they are paid to do.coopster_the_1st said:
Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.Stevo_666 said:
As you say I suspect there are two sides to this story, as there are to all stories. However the centre lefties don't want to know and already have their pitchforks and burning torches out - not that it'll do any good.coopster_the_1st said:
I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.kingstongraham said:Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.
Who knows, maybe this was one of the underlying reasons behind the allegations. It's not like the same group of people don't have recent history of throwing a strong-will Secretary of State under the bus for their selfish reasons.
I wonder what the reaction of some people would be if it was a female MP from an ethnic minority background in another political party who was subject to similar accusations?
This report from 6th February. Philip Rutnam resigned on 29th February alleging being bullied...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/exclusive-priti-patel-orders-officials-to-explain-status-of-grooming-gang-review/ar-BBZI0xC
Something seriously stinks here. Two Home Secretaries have requested this report and the civil servants are blocking it.1 -
So it ok to shout and swear at civil servants yet it’s no longer tolerated even in the military outside a combat situation.0
-
Get in their face? Wtf are you on about?john80 said:
If you are a top civil servant and you can't respond to a few fucks being thrown at you then how are you going to manage large contract negotiations or managing large numbers of staff. Let's face it plenty of your underlings will demonstrate manipulative behaviour that is equally challenging to deal with. I have found lines such as, "what did you say" in a firm manner either shuts people up and if they advance or continue then getting in their face works wonders or just the plain response, "who do you think you are talking to". Bullying has given me on for centuries and whilst it is not right yes the top 10% of earners in the civil service should be able to rebuke bullying early and nip it in the bud. It's called leading by example and having some backbone. I would be more concerned if Patel was bullying lower ranked people that have no power to respond without their managements backing. Senior people are there to deliver political priorities unless they are illegal.Pross said:
Well John80 thinks people in the top 10% of earners should be up to "having a few f**KS thrown at them" and from your own comments whilst you don't say bullying is acceptable you seem to think that even if she has bullied people she should keep her job as long as Boris thinks she's the best candidate. Notwithstanding any thoughts on what it says of out country's politicians if she is genuinely the best candidate if she has abused her position and bullied her staff (which it seems a comprehensive report has said is the case) there needs to be a sanction.DeVlaeminck said:I haven't seen anyone say it's ok Pross (maybe if I read back I would) and hopefully nobody thinks that. It's more an issue of whether it's a resignation issue when the report found (according to the summary released) that:
a) she'd had no feedback about her behaviour.
b) she wasn't aware of the impact of her behaviour.
c) some of her frustrations had foundation .
Given the importance of the job for the uk and the fact (whatever our opinions) that her boss must think she's the best person there is to do it (otherwise he'd use this opportunity to let her go) I just think it falls short of requiring resignation.
I know people will call BS in her changing or on her not realising her behaviour was out of order but I'm only going in what is in the public domain.
Re. the senior member of staff bit - I think arguably it is worse for someone in a less powerful position maybe without the financial security and experience of a senior civil servant. I suspect if her bullying had been confined to lower level targets we'd never have heard of it. That's not to say bullying is ever ok though and I suspect most people have experienced some level of bullying at some time in their life.
The process we're discussing IS them rebuking bullying, it just happens to be slightly more professional than a playground scrap.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
That wasn't what I meant. I perhaps should have ended my sentence with the word "either" .rjsterry said:
I don't get the idea that the it must be one or the other. Senior civil servants in the HO being obstructive or whatever does not justify or excuse bullying. They can both be bad in different ways.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict0 -
Is there any evidence that they did this in real time or was it straight to disciplinary process.pangolin said:
Get in their face? Wtf are you on about?john80 said:
If you are a top civil servant and you can't respond to a few fucks being thrown at you then how are you going to manage large contract negotiations or managing large numbers of staff. Let's face it plenty of your underlings will demonstrate manipulative behaviour that is equally challenging to deal with. I have found lines such as, "what did you say" in a firm manner either shuts people up and if they advance or continue then getting in their face works wonders or just the plain response, "who do you think you are talking to". Bullying has given me on for centuries and whilst it is not right yes the top 10% of earners in the civil service should be able to rebuke bullying early and nip it in the bud. It's called leading by example and having some backbone. I would be more concerned if Patel was bullying lower ranked people that have no power to respond without their managements backing. Senior people are there to deliver political priorities unless they are illegal.Pross said:
Well John80 thinks people in the top 10% of earners should be up to "having a few f**KS thrown at them" and from your own comments whilst you don't say bullying is acceptable you seem to think that even if she has bullied people she should keep her job as long as Boris thinks she's the best candidate. Notwithstanding any thoughts on what it says of out country's politicians if she is genuinely the best candidate if she has abused her position and bullied her staff (which it seems a comprehensive report has said is the case) there needs to be a sanction.DeVlaeminck said:I haven't seen anyone say it's ok Pross (maybe if I read back I would) and hopefully nobody thinks that. It's more an issue of whether it's a resignation issue when the report found (according to the summary released) that:
a) she'd had no feedback about her behaviour.
b) she wasn't aware of the impact of her behaviour.
c) some of her frustrations had foundation .
Given the importance of the job for the uk and the fact (whatever our opinions) that her boss must think she's the best person there is to do it (otherwise he'd use this opportunity to let her go) I just think it falls short of requiring resignation.
I know people will call BS in her changing or on her not realising her behaviour was out of order but I'm only going in what is in the public domain.
Re. the senior member of staff bit - I think arguably it is worse for someone in a less powerful position maybe without the financial security and experience of a senior civil servant. I suspect if her bullying had been confined to lower level targets we'd never have heard of it. That's not to say bullying is ever ok though and I suspect most people have experienced some level of bullying at some time in their life.
The process we're discussing IS them rebuking bullying, it just happens to be slightly more professional than a playground scrap.0 -
The evidence is that Prittis behaviour was difficult for them to cope with and as senior civil servants they could have engineered a way to foster a smooth running department. instead we got boooo hoooooo . Its worth noting that Priti has changed her approach and style and has improved. The report says so. It also suggests that her breaking the code was inadvertent. Given shes apologised, changed her style and approach AND is one of the hottest home secretaries ever she should be given a pass. Possibly with a smack bottom off Boris.john80 said:
Is there any evidence that they did this in real time or was it straight to disciplinary process.pangolin said:
Get in their face? Wtf are you on about?john80 said:
If you are a top civil servant and you can't respond to a few fucks being thrown at you then how are you going to manage large contract negotiations or managing large numbers of staff. Let's face it plenty of your underlings will demonstrate manipulative behaviour that is equally challenging to deal with. I have found lines such as, "what did you say" in a firm manner either shuts people up and if they advance or continue then getting in their face works wonders or just the plain response, "who do you think you are talking to". Bullying has given me on for centuries and whilst it is not right yes the top 10% of earners in the civil service should be able to rebuke bullying early and nip it in the bud. It's called leading by example and having some backbone. I would be more concerned if Patel was bullying lower ranked people that have no power to respond without their managements backing. Senior people are there to deliver political priorities unless they are illegal.Pross said:
Well John80 thinks people in the top 10% of earners should be up to "having a few f**KS thrown at them" and from your own comments whilst you don't say bullying is acceptable you seem to think that even if she has bullied people she should keep her job as long as Boris thinks she's the best candidate. Notwithstanding any thoughts on what it says of out country's politicians if she is genuinely the best candidate if she has abused her position and bullied her staff (which it seems a comprehensive report has said is the case) there needs to be a sanction.DeVlaeminck said:I haven't seen anyone say it's ok Pross (maybe if I read back I would) and hopefully nobody thinks that. It's more an issue of whether it's a resignation issue when the report found (according to the summary released) that:
a) she'd had no feedback about her behaviour.
b) she wasn't aware of the impact of her behaviour.
c) some of her frustrations had foundation .
Given the importance of the job for the uk and the fact (whatever our opinions) that her boss must think she's the best person there is to do it (otherwise he'd use this opportunity to let her go) I just think it falls short of requiring resignation.
I know people will call BS in her changing or on her not realising her behaviour was out of order but I'm only going in what is in the public domain.
Re. the senior member of staff bit - I think arguably it is worse for someone in a less powerful position maybe without the financial security and experience of a senior civil servant. I suspect if her bullying had been confined to lower level targets we'd never have heard of it. That's not to say bullying is ever ok though and I suspect most people have experienced some level of bullying at some time in their life.
The process we're discussing IS them rebuking bullying, it just happens to be slightly more professional than a playground scrap.
0 -
I see you are ignoring what has been pointed out...rjsterry said:
What, the 'workplace bullying is unacceptable' agenda?Stevo_666 said:
As predicted by some on this thread.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
Others will ignore it as I doesn't suit their agenda (even if its in the Guardian )"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Regardless of what evidence is put in here, you've already made up your mind anyway and got your pitchfork & burning torch out. Totally predictable.rick_chasey said:Lol at the “two sides” chat.
What on Earth do you think the independent inquiry was doing?
Next up, the two sides of Paul Gadd 🙄"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]2 -
And to get it back on topic, she is quite hot "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]2
-
What am I supposed to have ignored? Not defending the Home Office at all. Their recent record is appalling.Stevo_666 said:
I see you are ignoring what has been pointed out...rjsterry said:
What, the 'workplace bullying is unacceptable' agenda?Stevo_666 said:
As predicted by some on this thread.TheBigBean said:The Guardian's analysis of BoJo's decision. The civil service don't come out of it smelling of roses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/20/how-boris-johnson-found-grounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict
Others will ignore it as I doesn't suit their agenda (even if its in the Guardian )1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
https://youtu.be/xk4EMBXxG5A
