SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,719
It isn’t really a competence issue, it’s one of morals and ethics. And he has even less of those than he does competence
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should Priti Patel be sacked?
- Thread starter DerekC
- Start date
- Status
It isn’t really a competence issue, it’s one of morals and ethics. And he has even less of those than he does competence
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Well that is true.
When I look at the DfT I beg to differ - so I suggest we agree to disagree. The DfT has micromanaged (“run”) the railways with not good consequences for example.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Patel is one of the authors of the Britannia Unchained book (the one which claims the British are the worst idlers in the world) which is said to ideologically underpin the government these days.
I'd sack her purely for that personally.
I'd sack her purely for that personally.
I agree with many of the comments above.
The fact that a bully in the workplace doesn't think that she's actually guilty of bullying just makes this whole thing worse. Bullying "unintentionally" rather than "deliberately" is no excuse, in fact it makes the bullying worse. It either demonstrates a lack of self-awareness, or it demonstrates an attempt by the bully to shift the blame onto the person being bullied, as in "I talk tough but fair" etc.
My local Council, Cheshire East, was formed in part to enable the person who became its leader to get the job - he'd not have been able to run the previous council but he had power enough in the part he helped set up. He then ran the council with a culture of bullying, which was only partially resolved by the Conservatives being kicked out in 2019 (he'd resigned prior to that also). It seems that it became a culture of bullying instigated from the top, and wasn't questioned when he was in charge.
EDIT - I guess my point here is that the accusations of bullying ran and ran, even when the former leader's successor implemented an "inquiry". The council built on a reputation for secrecy, lack of openness, and lack of attention to the needs of its constituents. It could be that this Priti Patel thing could run and run also, and yet again Boris Johnson's lack of ability to make decisions would then bite him again - of course he should sack her and promise her a return in due course. In six month's time we'll look back and see whether this issue dies quickly or runs. For sure Labour will make what it can of it, plus there's the pending case for Philip Rutnam which should turn into an employment tribunal next year (20 September scheduled). Or will he now get an enormous pay-off?
The fact that a bully in the workplace doesn't think that she's actually guilty of bullying just makes this whole thing worse. Bullying "unintentionally" rather than "deliberately" is no excuse, in fact it makes the bullying worse. It either demonstrates a lack of self-awareness, or it demonstrates an attempt by the bully to shift the blame onto the person being bullied, as in "I talk tough but fair" etc.
My local Council, Cheshire East, was formed in part to enable the person who became its leader to get the job - he'd not have been able to run the previous council but he had power enough in the part he helped set up. He then ran the council with a culture of bullying, which was only partially resolved by the Conservatives being kicked out in 2019 (he'd resigned prior to that also). It seems that it became a culture of bullying instigated from the top, and wasn't questioned when he was in charge.
EDIT - I guess my point here is that the accusations of bullying ran and ran, even when the former leader's successor implemented an "inquiry". The council built on a reputation for secrecy, lack of openness, and lack of attention to the needs of its constituents. It could be that this Priti Patel thing could run and run also, and yet again Boris Johnson's lack of ability to make decisions would then bite him again - of course he should sack her and promise her a return in due course. In six month's time we'll look back and see whether this issue dies quickly or runs. For sure Labour will make what it can of it, plus there's the pending case for Philip Rutnam which should turn into an employment tribunal next year (20 September scheduled). Or will he now get an enormous pay-off?
Last edited:
Absolutely she should be sacked
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Couldn’t agree more
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Sure, I'd agree with you that DfT micro-managing railways has done a lot of harm - but isn't that a case of, the Civil Service doing exactly what elected Government ministers have told them to do: The problem there is with what elected ministers have decided to do, rather than being a problem that requires 'standing up' to the civil service.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
If she wont resign then clearly she should be sacked. Neither will happen because Tories don't do ethics.
nlogax
Established Member
Patel not being fired and not quitting is another of the standard middle fingers to 'doing the right thing' that we've seen over the last decade or so. Not sure why anyone would be surprised.
In the case of DfT, wasn't there one relatively recent Transport Secretary who insisted and personally signing off *everything* put before him/her by civil servants?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,265
It’s as if the other main party does...
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Luckily one person in Westminster took some personal responsibility:
Priti Patel: Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs home secretary
The home secretary apologises for any upset - but says she was "not being supported" by her department.
www.bbc.co.uk
What a shame out Tories overlords are such hypocritical, sniveling moral cowards. One rule for them. One rule for us. She breached the ministerial code. That should be fatal to a minster's career, just as a breach of a discipline and ethics code would be to any of us in the real world. She should have resigned but she wont. She should be sacked but she wont be. Luckily Ms Patel is sorry that her behaviour in the past has upset people - so that's all right then.
EDIT. Hang on there is more to make it all ok:
Logan Carroll
Member
Is there any details on what the “bullying” consisted off?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Second that. I don't understand all of this subjective nonsense about people feeling "more represented" by someone who has the same skin tone as them but has completely different beliefs. I want someone who is good at the job, is nice at the job, and properly represents the British public as a whole, not just some box-ticking exercise. And, yes, I could be considered "ethnic minority" myself, but that's not the way I see it - we are all British first and foremost.
Logan Carroll
Member
The articles used the phrase “bullying” so i put it in quotes.
I don’t have enough information to make an opinion on it yet.
From the press variously, such as https://news.sky.com/story/priti-pa...he-claims-against-the-home-secretary-12137076:
Logan Carroll
Member
Who was this directed against?
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,719
Reassured by whom, I wonder?
Probably something like this:
Boris: are you sorry you upset people?
Priti: I’m sorry they felt that way (note - no apology for behaviour)
Boris: that’s alright then
DarloRich
Veteran Member
The opinion required is not on the bullying. It is on the breaching of the ministerial code
Presumably employees in the Home Office, for which Philip Rutnam was permanent secretary and by implication for whom he felt responsible.
The same article goes on to report previous allegations of a similar nature against her at the department for Work & Pensions and as International Development Secretary.
It seems to me that either "someone" is out to get her, or she has "form" as a bully.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Good lord - there is absolutely no way I could be in politics -none whatsoever.
Shouting - I get plant managers doing that to me all day - and I am senior to them!
Swearing - wow. The owner of the company does that all the time.
Belittling - now I agree that is beneath contempt and something I would take a strong stance against.
I see the twitter world is lighting up on the subject -this one from a person I really respect Lilian Greenwood basically saying it is a non-apology.
Shouting - I get plant managers doing that to me all day - and I am senior to them!
Swearing - wow. The owner of the company does that all the time.
Belittling - now I agree that is beneath contempt and something I would take a strong stance against.
I see the twitter world is lighting up on the subject -this one from a person I really respect Lilian Greenwood basically saying it is a non-apology.
The government has made a whole slew of statements on bullying on https://www.gov.uk/workplace-bullying-and-harassment and elsewhere. These include:
So either (and not for the first time) the Prime Minister is indulging in a 'do as I say, not do as I do policy' or he does not realise that he is sending a message to employers up and down the country that he does not take bullying seriously. I might start to worry whether our commitment to employment law stands up post 31st December.
I am sure I am not the only one on here who has worked in an intimidating workplace (although no-one swore at me, shouted yes - achieved nothing). It doesn't encourage people to do their best work. It just becomes a job, while in the top echelons you want people to think imaginatively, maybe 'go the extra mile'.
The quote on the findings by Sir Alex Allen from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076
It would appear that Ms Patel has been found guilty of some of these in that
So either (and not for the first time) the Prime Minister is indulging in a 'do as I say, not do as I do policy' or he does not realise that he is sending a message to employers up and down the country that he does not take bullying seriously. I might start to worry whether our commitment to employment law stands up post 31st December.
I am sure I am not the only one on here who has worked in an intimidating workplace (although no-one swore at me, shouted yes - achieved nothing). It doesn't encourage people to do their best work. It just becomes a job, while in the top echelons you want people to think imaginatively, maybe 'go the extra mile'.
The quote on the findings by Sir Alex Allen from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076
Shouted at by a junior isn't the same thing - I was shouted at by a junior as I refused to make a concession, he had never helped me (while others had), he was frustrated. Swearing in itself is not great, it is swearing at someone that is the real issue, in my opinion, particularly in front of others. Belittling - spot on!
DerekC
Established Member
It does depend on the context and the culture in the workplace. Having worked on construction sites quite a lot in the past, you get very rapidly used to shouting and swearing, it's part of how things are done, you don't take it personally and you give as good as you get. But you can still tell the difference between reasonable encouragement to get the job done and personal attacks - "you are the most {expletive} useless person on this site, everything you do is {expletive} and I can't stand the sight of you.." - is one I recall from a foreman who did get sacked (for theft of scrap material) shortly afterwards.
Working in DfT for a couple of years was very clearly different. I never heard anyone shout and swearing was very rare and never aimed at someone else. A civil servant facing shouting and swearing from the Home Secretary would be shocked by it and wouldn't be able to respond - which is the nature of bullying - using your power and position to diminish someone in order to get what you want (even if it's wrong).
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,719
I love the raft of stooge Tory MPs being wheeled out to defend her. She was just frustrated. Yeah right, whatever. I get frustrated at work every day and I manage to avoid shouting, swearing and belittling people and creating a culture of fear. It’s called being human
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,963
Our own mini -Trump following the example of the real thing - no matter how bad your cronies' behaviour, deny anything is wrong and exonerate them.
This government will now have no credibility in preventing workplace bullying, just as it lost credibility in the world when it reneged on an agreement it signed only a year ago and introduced legislation proposing to break international law, and its lockdown rules lost credibility when it exonerated Cummings' antics.
Boris got rid of most of the people of honesty and competence in his pre-election purge, and surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants. Bluster, lying and incompetence have been hallmarks of his career, and becoming PM has not improved his behaviour.
This government will now have no credibility in preventing workplace bullying, just as it lost credibility in the world when it reneged on an agreement it signed only a year ago and introduced legislation proposing to break international law, and its lockdown rules lost credibility when it exonerated Cummings' antics.
Boris got rid of most of the people of honesty and competence in his pre-election purge, and surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants. Bluster, lying and incompetence have been hallmarks of his career, and becoming PM has not improved his behaviour.
Yes to all of that. Cummings, Janrick, Patel ... for all it's "consider the matter closed".
The rent-a-gob Tory MPs wheeled out, no doubt with a promise from the whips of a start on their record-cards, to say how Johnson has made the right decision.
That term is basically only used when the matter is quite obviously anything but closed.
Standard BoJo tactic - ignore it for long enough until it goes away.
If an inquiry into my behaviour at work found me guilty of bullying, I would be instantly sacked. Why should Patel be any different? This sends out a poor message, especially when trust in government is so low anyway.
And what is the point of this inquiry, if all Patel has to do is say sorry and keeps her job? Also, saying
“I’m sorry that my behaviour has upset people” and saying it’s “completely unintentional” is not really an apology at all.
I also find it hilarious that it is currently Anti-Bullying Week.
And what is the point of this inquiry, if all Patel has to do is say sorry and keeps her job? Also, saying
“I’m sorry that my behaviour has upset people” and saying it’s “completely unintentional” is not really an apology at all.
I also find it hilarious that it is currently Anti-Bullying Week.
So are we saying, found gulity, but as she is a woman, we can just forget that, carry on as normal, she will be looked up to by school bullies, and any other 'bully', plus of course if they do not have to abide by rules, then why should anyone else in the Country, so that is D.C and P.P now who the rules do not apply to !
- Status