Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Blue 1]

This kind of thing, where the person who has acted correctly and morally is left no choice but to resign, and the person with no morals who has behaved terribly stays on, just further degrades any trust or respect anyone had left for the institutions of government and hardens the contempt many already feel for them. It's corrosive.

She has committed what should be dismissible offences in the multiple departments she's led, and would be in any normal job. It really, really stinks.

She thinks rules don't apply to her and is incredibly thick.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Oh look, guess whose mate has been snuck into the house of lords.

Evgeny Lebedev - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[GrandOldTeam]

This kind of thing, where the person who has acted correctly and morally is left no choice but to resign, and the person with no morals who has behaved terribly stays on, just further degrades any trust or respect anyone had left for the institutions of government and hardens the contempt many already feel for them. It's corrosive.

She has committed what should be dismissible offences in the multiple departments she's led, and would be in any normal job. It really, really stinks.

What did she do?
Has any specifics been released?
... Has any other politician of her seniority ever been investigated/sacked?

I've just read via the Guardian;

A statement published by Allan revealed that Patel had “not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect”.

Allan added: “Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”

The statement revealed that at times Patel had shouted and sworn at civil servants due to the “Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support”.

Allan said Patel’s behaviour met the civil service definition of bullying as “intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally," he found.”.

That definition is pretty wide, the example pretty vague and without knowing some specifics, it's hard to be so conclusive from the outside looking in.

 

[Blue 1]

 

[Blue 1]

What did she do?
Has any specifics been released?
... Has any other politician of her seniority ever been investigated/sacked?

I've just read via the Guardian;

A statement published by Allan revealed that Patel had “not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect”.

Allan added: “Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”

The statement revealed that at times Patel had shouted and sworn at civil servants due to the “Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support”.

Allan said Patel’s behaviour met the civil service definition of bullying as “intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally," he found.”.

That definition is pretty wide, the example pretty vague and without knowing some specifics, it's hard to be so conclusive from the outside looking in.

It honestly isn't.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

It honestly isn't.

You didn't answer my questions...

She could be a nasty piece of work who needs sacking - but I can't find any specific incident on bullying named that makes me think she's a bad wrong'un.

As I can understand it - and admittedly I've only skimmed over reports;

Sacking a Home Secretary because they, at times, shouted and swore?

Sacking a Home Secretary because they made someone feel uncomfortable? "Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”

Maybe if the Home Secretary was a white, pompous male there wouldn't be this much of a media pile on. I refuse to believe all the previous people in her job didn't, 'on occasion' - shout or swear or heaven forbid, make anyone feel uncomfortable.

 

[Blue 1]

You didn't answer my questions...

She could be a nasty piece of work who needs sacking - but I can't find any specific incident on bullying named that makes me think she's a bad wrong'un.

As I can understand it - and admittedly I've only skimmed over reports;

Sacking a Home Secretary because they, at times, shouted and swore?

Sacking a Home Secretary because they made someone feel uncomfortable? "Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”

Maybe if the Home Secretary was a white, pompous male there wouldn't be this much of a media pile on. I refuse to believe all the previous people in her job didn't, 'on occasion' - shout or swear or heaven forbid, make anyone feel uncomfortable.

You are underplaying it. It was so bad in one instance a senior official collapsed after a row with her.

There have been multiple complaints about her behaviour in every department she's worked in, too, and it's got to have been bad for the inquiry to have found against her.

Senior official collapses after row with Patel

Ministers and officials at the Home Office are engaged in a bitter civil war after a senior official collapsed following a “heated” meeting with Priti Patel, the home secretary.The official was hospitalised after staff worked through the night on a deportation court case in which a judge banned the

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[tsubaki]

What did she do?
Has any specifics been released?
... Has any other politician of her seniority ever been investigated/sacked?

I've just read via the Guardian;

A statement published by Allan revealed that Patel had “not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect”.

Allan added: “Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”

The statement revealed that at times Patel had shouted and sworn at civil servants due to the “Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support”.

Allan said Patel’s behaviour met the civil service definition of bullying as “intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally," he found.”.

That definition is pretty wide, the example pretty vague and without knowing some specifics, it's hard to be so conclusive from the outside looking in.

this is only from a summary of the report, written by someone who resigned in protest after this spin was put out - the whole report hasn’t come out yet

 

[GrandOldTeam]

You are underplaying it. It was so bad in one instance a senior official collapsed after a row with her.

Senior official collapses after row with Patel

Ministers and officials at the Home Office are engaged in a bitter civil war after a senior official collapsed following a “heated” meeting with Priti Patel, the home secretary.The official was hospitalised after staff worked through the night on a deportation court case in which a judge banned the

www.thetimes.co.uk

Am I?

How so?

If I was to condemn someone so heavily, as you have and confidently assert;

This kind of thing, where the person who has acted correctly and morally is left no choice but to resign, and the person with no morals who has behaved terribly stays on, just further degrades any trust or respect anyone had left for the institutions of government and hardens the contempt many already feel for them. It's corrosive.

She has committed what should be dismissible offences in the multiple departments she's led, and would be in any normal job. It really, really stinks.

She thinks rules don't apply to her and is incredibly thick.

Then I'd have some level of insight or at least some basic detail?

Do you? Genuine question.

I'll ask again;

What did she do?
Has any specifics been released?
... Has any other politician of her seniority ever been investigated/sacked?

"It was so bad in one instance a senior official collapsed after a row with her" isn't really sufficient, is it?

Unless the specifics are available - then I don't see how anyone could be so conclusive.

Anyone know then what exactly she did, that was so exceptional that meant she is an absolute wrong'un who needs sacking?

For some, or many - it'll just be because she's a Tory. For some, it'll also be who she is.

 

[Blue 1]

Am I?

How so?

If I was to condemn someone so heavily, as you have and confidently asset;



Then I'd have some level of insight or at least some basic detail?

Do you? Genuine question.

I'll ask again;

What did she do?
Has any specifics been released?
... Has any other politician of her seniority ever been investigated/sacked?

"It was so bad in one instance a senior official collapsed after a row with her" isn't really sufficient, is it?

Unless the specifics are available - then I don't see how anyone could be so conclusive.

Anyone know then what exactly she did, that was so exceptional that meant she is an absolute wrong'un who needs sacking?

For some, or many - it'll just be because she's a Tory. For some, it'll also be who she is.

The report concluded that she had broken the ministerial code (again). This is like me breaking the gross misconduct rules in my work contract.

Johnson, somehow, decides she hasn't.

Author of report feels so strongly about this that they resign.

Stinks.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

this is only from a summary of the report, written by someone who resigned in protest after this spin was put out - the whole report hasn’t come out yet

Indeed.

They're the headlines of the report, the headlines are vague and not enough.

Swearing and shouting, and making people feel "uncomfortable" on occasion - I find it hard to believe any previous home secretary didn't do that "on occasion".

So what's the difference here?

Answer: It seems nobody knows yet, because the detail/specifics aren't available.

It's all agenda driven fuelled speculation.

 

[tsubaki]

Indeed.

They're the headlines of the report, the headlines are vague and not enough.

Swearing and shouting, and making people feel "uncomfortable" on occasion - I find it hard to believe any previous home secretary didn't do that "on occasion".

So what's the difference here?

Answer: It seems nobody knows yet, because the detail/specifics aren't available.

It's all agenda driven fuelled speculation.

Well exactly, though the author resigning after a summary comes out which says she basically didn’t do anything and anyway civil servants were to blame should tell everyone that the summary probably doesn’t accurately describe the report.

Of course the next step will be to drown the former Private Secretary in cash and job offers in exchange for his silence.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

The report concluded that she had broken the ministerial code (again). This is like me breaking the gross misconduct rules in my work contract.

Johnson, somehow, decides she hasn't.

Author of report feels so strongly about this that they resign.

Stinks.

One pompous fella disagrees with another pompous fella then?

I don't doubt for one moment you know the entirety of the ministerial code - me - I've no clue.

What did she do to break it?

I've had a quick skim just now and found this within it;



Pffft. Sack every last one of them then - they've all broke parts of that.

All the reports are saying she shouted and swore, and made some people feel uncomfortable on occasion.

I thought initially it stinks that they've not released the full report, but then I've no idea what level of confidential information is included.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Indeed.

They're the headlines of the report, the headlines are vague and not enough.

Swearing and shouting, and making people feel "uncomfortable" on occasion - I find it hard to believe any previous home secretary didn't do that "on occasion".

So what's the difference here?

Answer: It seems nobody knows yet, because the detail/specifics aren't available.

It's all agenda driven fuelled speculation.

It's not really a shock, breaching the ministerial code is almost a rite of passage for this cabinet.

However, there does seem to be a persistent notion that Patel seems to be pretty awful to work with. Maybe hostile environments are the only ones she knows how to create.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Well exactly, though the author resigning after a summary comes out which says she basically didn’t do anything and anyway civil servants were to blame should tell everyone that the summary probably doesn’t accurately describe the report.

Of course the next step will be to drown the former Private Secretary in cash and job offers in exchange for his silence.

If the summary of the report doesn't accurate describe the report - whose responsibility is that?

It doesn't say much at all does it?

I've never heard of him before today - not sure I'd give much credence to a 69 year old resigning from a job he's had since 2011.

I thought someone would have given me a handful of specifics of her being a spiteful bullying [beep] by now but nobody knows do they?