Priti Patel.

[sandGroundZero]

Peter Brookes from today's Times

ref. post #36 (and others):
It is not improbable that, being the PM's appointee, Sir Alex Allan had 'trimmed' his report so as not to paint too grim a picture of Ms. Patel's behaviour. Having it then ignored made the futility of his position too obvious to bear.

[donkey22]

But that also makes her a target for those who didn't want Brexit you can't have it both ways.

Why is this a non problem, whereas when the speaker of the house was accused of bullying, the media and the tories went berserk ? Or am I just missing something completely?
She's undoubtedly popular with the section of the electorate who like authoritarian sociopaths

[gazaprop]

We seem to be getting a little off track here re Public v Private Sector performance. There is no doubt that there are sections of the Public Sector doing good work and out performing Private companies. I mentioned this on another thread where I wrote that there are some areas that should not be placed in private hands, railways are a good example.
However that was not my point. My point referred to a culture, prevalent in every Public Sector office I've worked in, where productivity, respect for the management hierarchy, management efficacy, sickness levels and absenteeism were woeful!
Not everyone subscribed to the 'sod it' agenda but a significant amount did and, many who tried to buck this trend soon became disillusioned and sank to the depths.
Seriously, anyone who argues against this simply does not know what they're talking about - my first week in post I went home each evening with lock jaw my mouth was agape that much, I used to call the Office Sleepy Hollow.
A question I often asked was - 'what exactly do you have to do to get sacked from here?'
Answers usually ranged from - 'dunno, no one's ever been sacked' or 'shoot the Cheif Executive'.

Again, a lot of tribal nonsense posted about right wing mouth frothers and whingers.
It is clear that there were mistakes made on both sides of this argument. Swearing at people, it's not nice but who hasn't? Raising your voice at a subordinate, it's not nice but who hasn't? We've all fallen short of drawing room manners at some point and those who claim otherwise are big fat liars.
Should a process have been followed to address the initial complaint properly - yes, was it - apparently not.
Could the issue have been taken up by a union rep - yes, was it - I don't know.

There are lots of unfathomable things in this affair and none of us are completely across everything.

Is she a good and efficient Home Secretary - the answer is subjective, did Sir Whatshisname, the first resignee, throw his toys out of the pram - none of us knows, was the alleged victim being over sensitive (one persons bollocking is another's bullying) - none of us knows.

[gazaprop]

She's undoubtedly popular with the section of the electorate who like authoritarian sociopaths[/QUOTE]

Starmer, Thatcher, Wilson, Trump, De Gaul, Blair, Bush(s), Clinton - the list is hardly exclusive to Right Wing voters.

[gazaprop]

Peter Brookes from today's Times

ref. post #36 (and others):
It is not improbable that, being the PM's appointee, Sir Alex Allan had 'trimmed' his report so as not to paint too grim a picture of Ms. Patel's behaviour. Having it then ignored made the futility of his position too obvious to bear.

Am I the only one across the process here? As far as I'm aware the PM is the final arbiter and not bound by the findings of the inquiry.
Because he disagrees with the findings another Sir Humphrey has spat his dummy out and wandered off to his cottage in the Home Counties.
As far as I can see commonsense has prevailed and Patel has been slapped across the wrists.
Johnson has decided to break the stupid convention of sacking a Minister no matter what, and preserved some continuity in an important department.
She refuses to accept the bullying label but has apologised for any offence given - MOVE ON

[silver fox]

Am I the only one across the process here? As far as I'm aware the PM is the final arbiter and not bound by the findings of the inquiry.
Because he disagrees with the findings another Sir Humphrey has spat his dummy out and wandered off to his cottage in the Home Counties.
As far as I can see commonsense has prevailed and Patel has been slapped across the wrists.
Johnson has decided to break the stupid convention of sacking a Minister no matter what, and preserved some continuity in an important department.
She refuses to accept the bullying label but has apologised for any offence given - MOVE ON

So, everyone should just move on because Johnson says so, when are we supposed to go down on our knees in praise of Johnson? sickening.

[Little Londoner]

The ultimate arbiter is the PM, Allen could not rationally resign on the grounds you state as he is not Judge nor Jury he is merely an investigator and his findings are not as damning as you suggest.



My advice is that the home secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.

This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department, has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her.


If she had persisted despite warnings then fine but sacking ?


Yes I suppose if you are anti-Patel and all she stands for or just a plain old racist misogynist you would find reasons to sack her.

In the real world telling her that her hyper-sensitive workshy civil servants are upset by her direct manner appeared to have done the job.

PM tried to water down Patel bullying report, say Whitehall sources (msn.com)

[joan ofarc]

I have only made a cursory look at the 'evidence' against Priti Patel but would make the point that women are often judged differently to men:

too pushy or assertive?
bossy or commanding?
sweary or rich command of the language
demanding or sets high standards?
know-all or a good grasp of the issues?
abrasive or speaks his mind?

I could go on. Women have always had to moderate their anger because they are called emotional if they dare to get heated. Calm down dear, calm down. Ever heard that?
Women have always had to suppress their knowledge / expertise for fear of undermining men's fragile egos.

[local]

Your right its a good job our resident hypocrite potty mouth isn't a Minister I would have to be putting a formal complaint in, what was it racist t**d

amongst others...........

If I could be bothered I would find the post "the I'm a woman so why can't I defence" came in.

[Toodles McGinty]

I have only made a cursory look at the 'evidence' against Priti Patel but would make the point that women are often judged differently to men:

too pushy or assertive?
bossy or commanding?
sweary or rich command of the language
demanding or sets high standards?
know-all or a good grasp of the issues?
abrasive or speaks his mind?

I could go on. Women have always had to moderate their anger because they are called emotional if they dare to get heated. Calm down dear, calm down. Ever heard that?
Women have always had to suppress their knowledge / expertise for fear of undermining men's fragile egos.

I agree. On here the favourite way of dismissing a woman's opinion is accusing her of being drunk. And definitely no 'rich command of the language', but rather infantile name calling.

The case with Patel, particularly since I've not heard another female politician being described as a 'bully' or 'demanding' since the bad old days of outright discrimination, is the frequency of the claims.

One woman was paid off after accusing Patel of bullying. Bullying that allegedly led to a suicide attempt. There have been more since, and a tribunal due next September for more of the same. Then there is the PM asking for the charges to be watered down.

And the third time at least she's been accused of breaking ministerial code. I believe there will be another forthcoming with her involvement in a Nigerian gas company.

Her 'apology': "I have clearly upset people in the past and on reflection - and I have had time to reflect upon this as well - looking at what has been published today on the report, there is no question I'm absolutely sorry for the upset that has been caused and I'm very, very clear about that." is like the last 'apology': “I’m sorry if people feel that there have been failings,”.

Had this been a politician from any other party, the accusations would be flying thick and fast. There would, quite rightly, be outrage. But there is always this same Pavlovian reaction by some. Not all, there are folk on here that are true one-nation Tories with critical, rational thought rather than the tiresome, knee jerk 'my team is always right' syndrome that renders debate impossible.

Bullying is never acceptable. The gender or standing of the bully and bullied are immaterial. It isn't a matter of being weak, or not being able to stand up to someone. It ruins careers. It ruins educations. It ruins lives. In so many tragic cases, it ends lives. Nobody should tolerate it, especially in our government.

[gazaprop]

So, everyone should just move on because Johnson says so, when are we supposed to go down on our knees in praise of Johnson? sickening.

A rather silly response. I didn't say that and you know I didn't. I see the usual sycophants have 'liked' your post though.

What I find disappointing is how the debate has fallen either side of posters narrow minded tribal mind sets.

Bullying, honestly - you couldn't cough loudly in some Public Sector offices without stressing some poor soul to the point of a month off sick.

[salus.populi]

We seem to be getting a little off track here re Public v Private Sector performance.

It was you that first introduced public v private sector performance into the thread and continue to bang on about it.

[Alikado]

It was you that first introduced public v private sector performance into the thread and continue to bang on about it.

You would think that that they would keep quiet about the Private Sector at the moment and just let it carry on covering itself in glory.

[sandGroundZero]

I …would make the point that women are often judged differently to men:

• too pushy or assertive?
• bossy or commanding?
• sweary or rich command of the language
• demanding or sets high standards?
• know-all or a good grasp of the issues?
• abrasive or speaks his mind?

I could go on. Women have always had to moderate their anger because they are called emotional if they dare to get heated. Calm down dear, calm down. Ever heard that? | Women have always had to suppress their knowledge / expertise for fear of undermining men's fragile egos. — post #47

By the same token, (some) women have asserted that the female style (of communication, management, etc.) is superior and preferable — effectively suggesting that men should become other than they are (by nature ??).

Maybe that accounts for the emergence of gender re-assignment; do you think?

[Toodles McGinty]

As far as I can see, this issue has nothing to do with public / private sector. Nor has it, despite the knee jerk reaction got to do with a specific political party.

It has to do with our government. There isn't a different one depending on which way you voted.

It has to do with bullying and the effect that has on people's mental health. On people's lives.

It's also about breaking ministerial code, which Patel seems to do with alarming regularity:

There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document – integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest – must be honoured at all times...

Obviously Patel isn't alone in breaking this code. The entire Cabinet would be locked up going off that one paragraph. But the government must lead by example, and right now every poll going shows that confidence in the government - OUR government, is at an all time low. When the PM asks for a report to be watered down in favour of one of his ministers, it shatters public confidence.

It also makes a mockery of those suffering with mental health problems because of bullying. Or those fighting in tribunals because some piece of crap felt they were entitled to talk to somebody as though they'd just scraped them off their shoe, by virtue of position or privilege. And those who have taken their own lives, or have kids that have taken their own lives, because of bullies. Dismissing those people, telling people to 'man up' or 'move on' or 'get over it' is insensitive at the least, viciously cruel at worst. Defending the perpetrators because of political loyalty is reprehensible.