Pritti, Posh dominatrix. she'll lock you down

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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

As predicted by some on this thread.

Others will ignore it as I doesn't suit their agenda (even if its in the Guardian )

What, the 'workplace bullying is unacceptable' agenda?

I see you are ignoring what has been pointed out...

What am I supposed to have ignored? Not defending the Home Office at all. Their recent record is appalling.

See the link that BB posted for starters.

orraloon

Stevo_666 said:

And to get it back on topic, she is quite hot

Is that 'hot' as in curry? 😉

C'mon then the Waynes, start flagging away at what is a joke. Blxxdy gammon flavoured snowflakes.

DeVlaeminck

Pross said:

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.

I don't "seem to think" I've stated very clearly that if you accept the summary of the report released then the issue can be dealt with without her resignation.

Nobody is saying it's ok to ignore it but there are enough caveats in the summary for an apology and some education to be sufficient sanction.

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

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.

As I say I'm commenting on what was released in the summary - if that is not an accurate reflection of the truth my opinion might be different.

Pross

DeVlaeminck said:

Pross said:

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.

I don't "seem to think" I've stated very clearly that if you accept the summary of the report released then the issue can be dealt with without her resignation.

Nobody is saying it's ok to ignore it but there are enough caveats in the summary for an apology and some education to be sufficient sanction.

So why did the person who produced the report feel the need to resign?

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

pblakeney said:

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.

As I say I'm commenting on what was released in the summary - if that is not an accurate reflection of the truth my opinion might be different.

See Brian's post on Page 3.

mrb123

Lovely smile. Shame she's built like a chest of drawers.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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

As predicted by some on this thread.

Others will ignore it as I doesn't suit their agenda (even if its in the Guardian )

What, the 'workplace bullying is unacceptable' agenda?

I see you are ignoring what has been pointed out...

What am I supposed to have ignored? Not defending the Home Office at all. Their recent record is appalling.

See the link that BB posted for starters.

I did and agree with his point. As you can see immediately above.

tailwindhome

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

The flip side of course is that Patel seems incapable of managing her team without shouting and swearing.

Seems like a basic competence issue.

kingstongraham

But at least she's good at her job.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

But at least she's good at her job.

If the benchmark is her boss then....

coopster_the_1st

Some people are going to be conflicted...

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1330240452004614144

veronese68

You really do struggle with the concept that two wrongs don't make a right

Pross

coopster_the_1st said:

Some people are going to be conflicted...

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1330240452004614144

Why would it leave anyone conflicted? If she has faced racism and misogyny that's unacceptable but it still doesn't excuse her using her position to bully others.

webboo

So after you have been found guilty of bullying. You then mention the abuse you have been subject too.
It never crossed her mind to mention it before. It being the worst she had ever experienced.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

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 🙄

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.

Lol independent inquiry makes it clear what if is, breach of ministerial code, head of civil service resigns over her bad conduct, but nah mate, someone on the bike forum posted something so I gotta listen.


In case it isn’t obvious the result of the independent inquiry isn’t one side of the argument. It is the conclusion of it. Don’t be so thick.

rick_chasey

Remind me what specifically did the head of the civil service quit over?

Briefing against the home office to the press in retaliation for him calling out her bullying.

So what does she go and do?

DeVlaeminck

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Pross said:

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.

I don't "seem to think" I've stated very clearly that if you accept the summary of the report released then the issue can be dealt with without her resignation.

Nobody is saying it's ok to ignore it but there are enough caveats in the summary for an apology and some education to be sufficient sanction.

So why did the person who produced the report feel the need to resign?

Well no doubt he feels Boris allowing Patel to remain in post undermines his authority.

I can't argue that he doesn't feel that just as you can't argue Boris doesn't feel that on balance she should remain in the job.

pblakeney

mrb123 said:

Lovely smile. Shame she's built like a chest of drawers.

Not sure that is a smile. More like "I've got something on you..."

kingstongraham

This can't be right.

coopster_the_1st

kingstongraham said:

This can't be right.

I agree on there being a lack of competence with the stopping of the Channel illegal immigrants. I would not fire Priti if it is her department that is the root of this department.

It definitely feels as if she is having to fight a number of vipers in the nest who are out to undermine her.

Ben6899

She's not gonna sleep with you, Coop.

rjsterry

Pross said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Some people are going to be conflicted...

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1330240452004614144

Why would it leave anyone conflicted? If she has faced racism and misogyny that's unacceptable but it still doesn't excuse her using her position to bully others.

Pretty clear implication in Tom Newton-Dunn's tweet is that the "source" is not entirely credible. Let's see if anything further emerges.

kingstongraham

I for one am shocked that the home office could be perceived as indifferent to any racism.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

This can't be right.

Why take all the heat of keeping her on to get rid of her a week later?

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

This can't be right.

Why take all the heat of keeping her on to get rid of her a week later?

Johnson's ego.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

This can't be right.

Why take all the heat of keeping her on to get rid of her a week later?

Johnson's ego.

In fairness I can see the logic in not firing people as the media and opposition get a taste for blood. Also once you fire the first one you establish a benchmark.

This Govt seems to have moved on from the above to not firing people being a goal in itself.

Whilst we aren’t allowed to say that Brexiteers are a bunch of thickos there does seem to be a clear correlation between thicko/incompetent MPs and their faith in Brexit. This means the the current Cabinet is as good as it will get and the alternatives are considerably worse.

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

Stevo_666 said:

And to get it back on topic, she is quite hot

Is that 'hot' as in curry? 😉

C'mon then the Waynes, start flagging away at what is a joke. Blxxdy gammon flavoured snowflakes.

Have a like 'Loon - this was started as a fun thread I think, not yet another centre leftie whingey bollox thread so you're just getting it back on topic

Stevo_666

mrb123 said:

Lovely smile. Shame she's built like a chest of drawers.

Thats more like it - back on topic.

Pross

When the inexplicable crushes thread was running on here and someone created the explicable crushes as an alternative I said the real opposite would be attractive people who do nothing for you. Patel falls into that category for me. Quite good looking on the outside but comes across as very ugly on the inside.