National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

Apart from the people that the government prevented the report authors speaking to that is...
Perhaps the government would like to explain why Sir Alex Allen was prevented from speaking to Sir Phillip Rutman, (the very Civil Servant who resigned after clashing with with Patel) as part of his "wide ranging, full and balanced" inquiry.

You think he had at least a case and evidence to put forward. It's not exactly normal behaviour in an investigation to prevent access to witnesses who may have important information....unless of course tour aim is to suppress that information. What have they got to lose/hide?

And telling too that the reports author resigned after Bojos pathetic hand-wringing endorsement of Patel.

And then he has added insult to injury Bojo writes to the Civil Service to tell them "bullying will not be tolerated"

“I am clear that there is a particular duty on ministers and permanent secretaries to create jointly across government a culture which is professional, respectful, focused and ambitious for change and in which there is no place for bullying.”

What you can't see is in tiny print at the bottom it says..."from now on obvs".

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how Rutnam's legal case against Patel for wrongful dismissal pans out.....Now I wonder why he would be taking that if it was a straightforward resignation.

Bad smells follow Pritti Patel for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Who's picking and choosing?
You. Perhaps you could show me where you have suggested that bullying on a mass scale and racism in the Corbyn led Labour Party is a bad thing?
A tory is accused of bullying years after the alleged incident(s) and you are all over it. Picking and choosing.

I would have thought a school governor should be able to display a little less prejudice on a public forum.
 
You. Perhaps you could show me where you have suggested that bullying on a mass scale and racism in the Corbyn led Labour Party is a bad thing?
A tory is accused of bullying years after the alleged incident(s) and you are all over it. Picking and choosing.

I would have thought a school governor should be able to display a little less prejudice on a public forum.
I think you'll find lots on here where I've been critical of Corbyn. Can't stand the man and his cronies. From what I've seen Starmer has accepted the independent report in full. Johnson hasn't. There is a clear difference.

No longer a governor since my youngest moved up so I'm free to say what I like!! As if I wasn't before.
 
Bullying is bad full stop, surely? Anyone found guilty of it should be weeded out...same applies whether you're a volunteer in a position of responsibility or Prime Minister....and everyone in between

She was a Minister and is SoS. The expectation of such high office should be that their behaviour is beyond reproach. And actually, in every recorded example throughout history of modern government, where a Minister has been found to break the ministerial code, they have gone. Either sacked or invited to offer their resignation before it came to that ignomy. Yet again this government and the types it surrounds itself with see fit to bend the rules and use weasel words like "limited and specific" to try and justify the type of behaviour that would have them howling from the backbenches, were it from any other corner than their Lords and Masters.

Maybe we should brush over the issue that she seemingly lacks the skill set to find an approach that does not result in her screaming and swearing at staff and moreover had to be told that this was not an acceptable way to treat people, would suggest her levels of empathy, self-awareness, ability to conduct difficult conversations and find a way to reach agreement with those who have different personalities to her own are somewhat limited. That suggests she does not actually possess the talent to hold the office she does. As I said up the thread, it might've been alright/accepted for a limited middle manager in the 80's, but thankfully we've progressed from the Dark Ages and we should expect better of those working for us (unless they've conveniently forgotten that bit too).

And for those who have tried to suggest, in this very thread, that this is somehow motivated by racism or sexism......all I can hear are the words of Martin Luther King ringing in my ears.....you know....that bit about being judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin?

Patel is most certainly being judged on the former and it does not look all that pretty to me.
 
Last edited:
Dan Rosenfield, a new CoS.



BBC News - Education secretary 'unlawfully scrapped children's rights'

Is it 'time to move on' yet?

Did you miss a bit again? "We took swift action to bring in temporary changes during a national crisis, all of which have now expired."

And the outcome of dragging it through the Appeal Court (who initially backed HMG) is........... richer QC`s ! Yippee!
 
Dan Rosenfield, a new CoS.





Did you miss a bit again? "We took swift action to bring in temporary changes during a national crisis, all of which have now expired."

And the outcome of dragging it through the Appeal Court (who initially backed HMG) is........... richer QC`s ! Yippee!

By taking it to the Court of Appeal it is highlighting and laying down such action isn't acceptable for the future. A perfectly reasonable appeal.
 
By taking it to the Court of Appeal it is highlighting and laying down such action isn't acceptable for the future. A perfectly reasonable appeal.

Whilst I understand the reasoning you would think "National Crisis" might just supercede the consultation of others.
As it says it was a short term, swift fix that has served it`s purpose and expired.

Good job it`s not a war really........ "The Luftwaffe are coming"...... lets consult as to what to do....... boom.
 
Whilst I understand the reasoning you would think "National Crisis" might just supercede the consultation of others.
As it says it was a short term, swift fix that has served it`s purpose and expired.

Good job it`s not a war really........ "The Luftwaffe are coming"...... lets consult as to what to do....... boom.

No it doesn't supercede it as "emergencies"* can get manufactured/exploited and then used for political purposes to lower rights etc. History is littered with this happening. I'd also argue the rights of vulnerable children in care are essential at any time. I'd go as far as saying an emergency is a critical time when those rights have to be protected/observed to being protected.

*I am not accusing the Tories of manufacturing Coronavirus for clarification.
 
Whilst I understand the reasoning you would think "National Crisis" might just supercede the consultation of others.
As it says it was a short term, swift fix that has served it`s purpose and expired.

Good job it`s not a war really........ "The Luftwaffe are coming"...... lets consult as to what to do....... boom.
Except they were extremely and it appears illegally selective about who they consulted with when they did it. And the impact was it put vulnerable children at risk.

The fact you defend everything the tories do, even when clearly wrong whether legally or morally, makes it very hard to take you credibly.

Looking forward to the standard whatabout response.
 
Except they were extremely and it appears illegally selective about who they consulted with when they did it. And the impact was it put vulnerable children at risk.

The fact you defend everything the tories do, even when clearly wrong whether legally or morally, makes it very hard to take you credibly.

Looking forward to the standard whatabout response.

In times of crisis those in charge have to act swiftly and, sometimes, there is fallout from that.
The decision can easily be reviewed when things are calmer, or should we have left social workers etc under immense pressure to reach targets?
By their nature vulnerable children are at risk, some decisions are about keeping that risk at a manageable level for everyone involved.
Had HMG left it to follow the normal consultation & engagement process people would have complained they weren`t acting quickly enough.
 
In times of crisis those in charge have to act swiftly and, sometimes, there is fallout from that.
The decision can easily be reviewed when things are calmer, or should we have left social workers etc under immense pressure to reach targets?
By their nature vulnerable children are at risk, some decisions are about keeping that risk at a manageable level for everyone involved.
Had HMG left it to follow the normal consultation & engagement process people would have complained they weren`t acting quickly enough.

Classic Govt apologism that. :)

Rights and such procedures are there for a reason, not something to be forgotten when it really matters or for expediency for the Govt. By their nature vulnerable children are at risk means the rights they are protected by are absolutely vital at the worst of times as well.
 
Classic Govt apologism that. :)

Rights and such procedures are there for a reason, not something to be forgotten when it really matters or for expediency for the Govt. By their nature vulnerable children are at risk means the rights they are protected by are absolutely vital at the worst of times as well.

Pragmatic realism I would say, if it was a step to far then the judgement reminds them of that.
Without the exact detail its hard to say either way.
Enjoy...
 
Back
Top Bottom