Pritti, Posh dominatrix. she'll lock you down

elbowloh

Matt Hancock defended her on the basis that she was always courteous to him.
As if it didn't occur to him that she might treat members of cabinet differently to those who she may have deemed as "underlings".

john80

Patel will be dealing with civil servants that will be in the top 10% of earners on a day to day basis. If these guys can't handle having a few fucks being thrown at them I do have to question what their career is going to be like if they can't make it to their pension. Maybe she does bully people on a daily basis or maybe they were unhappy with her instructions or direction. Women are not all sweetness and light when in senior management positions as often they have the agression of their male equivalents but may also have some skills in the traditional area of reputational damage.

shirley_basso

That is simply no longer true any more I'm afraid.

Rising to the top means being able to deal with all types of people not being a bossy, rude c-word.

coopster_the_1st

john80 said:

Patel will be dealing with civil servants that will be in the top 10% of earners on a day to day basis. If these guys can't handle having a few fucks being thrown at them I do have to question what their career is going to be like if they can't make it to their pension. Maybe she does bully people on a daily basis or maybe they were unhappy with her instructions or direction. Women are not all sweetness and light when in senior management positions as often they have the agression of their male equivalents but may also have some skills in the traditional area of reputational damage.

We have a group of civil servants who intentionally threw Amber Rudd under the bus by trying to cover up for their errors (Windrush) when she headed the department but their competence is again not questioned when they have tried to undermine their next Secretary of State.

To me, it sounds like Priti Patel was not going to put up with their incompetence so rightly got a few fucks thrown in their direction.


Regarding the thread title, she is definitely one of the more attractive female MP's

john80

shirley_basso said:

That is simply no longer true any more I'm afraid.

Rising to the top means being able to deal with all types of people not being a bossy, rude c-word.

Sometimes it is a skill to ruffle people's feathers at the right time. Very few successful teams don't have a challenging attitude and its associated brother friction. Happy clappy teams are generally just full of people who think the same and have a similar view. Don't get me wrong if the no challenge team is going in the right direction it is fine if the are not then they just keep on the path of least resistance. Brexit for the home office is certainly not the path of least resistance.

shirley_basso

Oh yes I absolutely agree with that but a 25k harrassment settlement and being called a bully aren't it.

Shock horror I do agree a bit with coopster though.

elbowloh

She broke the ministerial code, according to the official report, by the PMs own advisor on the code. It doesn't really matter what the offence was.

DeVlaeminck

I assume she is an extremely forceful person who doesn't suffer fools or those who disagree with her gladly.

I don't condone bullying even though it's less of an offence if directed at people in more senior positions than the less powerful. However even if she bullied everyone if Boris thinks she's the best person for the job and she is willing to mend her ways I don't think she should be forced out. It's a fairly important job she is doing and in the scheme of things whatever toes she's trodden on play second fiddle to having someone that will do the job well.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

I assume she is an extremely forceful person who doesn't suffer fools or those who disagree with her gladly.

I don't condone bullying even though it's less of an offence if directed at people in more senior positions than the less powerful. However even if she bullied everyone if Boris thinks she's the best person for the job and she is willing to mend her ways I don't think she should be forced out. It's a fairly important job she is doing and in the scheme of things whatever toes she's trodden on play second fiddle to having someone that will do the job well.

Boris couldn't have written a better piece himself. She won't mend. Your excuse is that it is a hard job so anything goes? You think she's doing a good job? The pool must be shallow.

DeVlaeminck

No not at all. Not it's a hard job - it's an important job. It's more important for the UK that we have the right people running the govt.

As for you saying she won't mend - how do you know?

And when did I say I thought she was doing a good job? In our democracy the point is does Boris and the Conservative govt think that.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

No not at all. Not it's a hard job - it's an important job. It's more important for the UK that we have the right people running the govt.

As for you saying she won't mend - how do you know?

And when did I say I thought she was doing a good job? In our democracy the point is does Boris and the Conservative govt think that.

This is not the first time she has been pulled up on this. That would suggest she is not interested in altering her behaviour. For it to get to the stage of having an independent investigation carried out and a report written, it's pretty obvious that it's a bit more than her just being a bit prone to shouting.

The foreword of the ministerial code, written by the PM himself:



Nor is it working on the evidence of the glacial pace at which Windrush compensation is being paid out

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

No not at all. Not it's a hard job - it's an important job. It's more important for the UK that we have the right people running the govt.

As for you saying she won't mend - how do you know?

And when did I say I thought she was doing a good job? In our democracy the point is does Boris and the Conservative govt think that.

This is not the first time she has been pulled up on this. That would suggest she is not interested in altering her behaviour. For it to get to the stage of having an independent investigation carried out and a report written, it's pretty obvious that it's a bit more than her just being a bit prone to shouting.

The foreword of the ministerial code, written by the PM himself:



Nor is it working on the evidence of the glacial pace at which Windrush compensation is being paid out

It would be more appropriate if it had the negatives removed

There must be bullying, harassment, leaking, breach of collective responsibility. Misuse of public money and actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

rick_chasey

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/i-didnt-realise-slamming-a-civil-servants-nuts-in-a-drawer-was-considered-bullying-says-priti-patel-20201120202717

🤣🤣

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

The foreword of the ministerial code, written by the PM himself:

That is kind of undermined by - "Boris Johnson 'asked for Patel report to be palatable', source claims".
No wonder Sir Alex Allan felt the need to resign. No wonder confidence in this government is at an all time low.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55026137

Pross

I've got a feeling there are a few people on here that have never experienced bullying in the workplace. Being a senior staff member of staff or being well paid doesn't magically make it less damaging to the person on the receiving end. I saw a Director who would regularly be humiliated by his second in command in front of the whole office and the bully would then use the sex discrimination card whenever anyone tried to do anything about it. I found out afterwards she had been paid off by two previous companies for the same behaviour.

She was also the appointment of the who was himself a bully who like to make those below him scapegoats for his decision making when it went wrong. I was on the wrong side of that to the point that despite being fairly well paid and a senior staff member I would feel physically sick going to work on a Monday morning. Until then I'd always been a fairly laid back person who could switch off from work once I left the office. I got to the stage where it was causing serious IBS flare ups. My former mentor who I'd worked with there since the company was created was on the verge of a breakdown and I made a point of putting my concerns about him in writing to the MD and company secretary.

Why some on here seem to think it is OK for this sort of thing to go with the territory of you are a senior manager on a good salary is beyond me. I'm certainly not a snowflake and enjoy office banter and piss taking as much as anyone but we're talking behaviour that can literally destroy lives.

DeVlaeminck

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.

kingstongraham

I think if you've been sacked as a minister once for breaking the ministerial code, haven't you lost the benefit of the doubt?

(She does have a bit of a Servalan vibe going on though.)

rjsterry

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.

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?

Notwithstanding that, the idea that nobody told her she was bullying her staff is clearly disputed.

rick_chasey

Given she already broke the code and got sacked once why is anyone giving her the benefit of the doubt?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

coopster_the_1st

There is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread with lots of people who were happy to turn a blind eye to the bullying from John Bercow because it suited a political outcome they were trying to achieve.

Pross

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.

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.

kingstongraham

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

coopster_the_1st

kingstongraham said:

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.

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 female Secretary of State under the bus for their selfish reasons.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

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 .

Just listened to last night's BBC podcast Newscast. Someone on there addressed a), b) and c) in an official capacity directly in person. Said person wasn't invited to give evidence funnily enough.
To claim innocence is downright lying.

rick_chasey

The guy who led the inquiry resigned after she wasn’t tinned.

All you need to know.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.

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.

Brexit brexit brexit

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.

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.

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.

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?

coopster_the_1st

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.

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.

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.

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?

Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.

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

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.

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.

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.

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?

Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.

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

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.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Everything looks like a brexit nail when you're a brexit hammer.

I'm right though and that it makes you feel uncomfortable by calling out your hypocrisy.

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.

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.

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?

Definitely more to the bullying allegations than meets the eye.

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

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.

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.