I think it is the first time a Minister has formally been found to have broken the Ministerial Code and hasn't resigned.
You may be surprised at this, but it is very uncommon for Ministers to treat their staff in an unprofessional manner.
Patel has the worst reputation of any over the last decade, that I am aware of.
You're right mate, I am surprised.
I struggle to grasp how the woman home secretary born in London to a Ugandan-Indian family is the first Home Secretary, or Minister to swear and shout or heaven forbid, make some people feel uncomfortable.
I'd have thought loads of them do that, and much worse.
To me, there must be more to it than this;
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.”.
All I can see, and nobody has yet to find me anything else - is the report says she swore, shouted and made people feel uncomfortable on occasion and unintentionally.
Based on whats in the public domain, I can't have a conclusive view.
I'd be leading with the pitchfolks if the specifics were released and she was a wroung'un.
Of course you can. And should.
If the code is pointless insofar as it has no consequences if you break it, don't have it then. If it exists, then there has to be consequences for breaking it.
You see mate, I have to completely disagree.
You've said;
Thing is mate, she was found to have broken the ministerial code by an independent investigation.
That should be enough.
It doesn't actually matter the specifics of what she did; what matters is an investigation found her guilty of breaking the code, and therefore she should resign or be sacked.
The specifics and context for me do matter.
They always do.
I've suggested people go and read this code because it'll show how vague and wide ranging it is. There's also loads of disclaimers, rightly so, in there like 'left to the good sense of Ministers"
It can't be as simple as "broke the code, sacked!" If specifics and context didn't matter, then heaven forbid you ever take a pen from a workplace, or login to a website that isn't for work purposes on work time. You'd be likely in breach of contract for both and should be sacked. If you weren't then what's the point in having a damn contract?
