Sir Philip Rutnam's Resignation

[Grumpy Git]

There is no smoke without fire.

 

[dosxuk]

There is no smoke without fire.

I think at this point it's more convicted arsonist being caught with petrol, matches, a book titled "making fires burn longer" and stood next to an abandoned building covered in "warning - fire risk" signage and their best friend saying, nah, they've never been interested in anything like that, people are making things up.

 

[DerekC]

@dosxuk - don't think she is convicted yet, but you forgot to mention that the building is actually on fire and there are a couple of smoking ruins down the street with witness evidence of her setting fire to them.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Hmm, imagine a new PM losing his chancellor and HS within weeks of being re-elected.

 

[edwin_m]

It's a choice between believing three (?) people who have no vested interest in sticking their heads above the parapet, and one who has a vested interest in denying everything.

 

[dosxuk]

PM digging in during PMQs, it's clear No10 sees this as an opportunity to cast the civil service as the baddies standing in the way of all the great things they're trying to accomplish. We all wondered who they were going to blame once the EU were out of the picture, I think we have our answer.

 

[Bantamzen]

PM digging in during PMQs, it's clear No10 sees this as an opportunity to cast the civil service as the baddies standing in the way of all the great things they're trying to accomplish. We all wondered who they were going to blame once the EU were out of the picture, I think we have our answer.

This follows the Trump modus operandi to a tee, blame anyone else you can & deflect. And I note from reports that when Labour MPs addressed the House BoJo turned on them saying they ought not to be saying anything because they couldn't sort bullying in their own party. So it seems its OK so long as other people do it too. I'm just waiting for BoJo to start calling it fake news, and describing Patel's behaviour as "perfect"....

 

[Grumpy Git]

Wait until Johnson starts saying "bigly".

 

[packermac]

I think it very much depends on the pecking order here.

whether he likes it or not, priti patel is now in charge of the civil service.
we all get bosses from time to time that we have disagreements with in working practice,in strategy and so on.Most of the time you just have to suck it up,no matter how idiotic his/her new ideas are.

in the case of mr rutnam, it would seem that an impasse has been reached.
he's perfectly entitled to resign over "political differences".
as part of the civil service, he is paid to implement the ideas, not to make them.

accusations like bullying should be referred to an inspectorate to see if there is a case to answer.
That is sometimes a very grey area, when dealing with teams of people there are always personality clashes, and some can be more abrupt than others.It does not necessarily constitute bullying to have a forthright personality.

if mrs patel wins ,however, he shouldn't be asking for a reference!

I do not know if she as been bullying or not, but it seems these Civil Servants are a bunch of snowflakes (oh I was sworn at by my boss!). Well I and everybody else I worked with (office environment) were sworn at by their boss over the whole 41 years of may career, that I gave up in 2012. By that time swearing at and by colleagues (both sexes), to suppliers and sometimes bosses was just a daily way of life.
Bullying these days seems to be being made to follow a policy by your boss you personally do not agree with, which is actually management.
Civil Servants need to remember they support not run the government (whatever colour, even if one you do not support). The clue is in the second word of their title "servant"

 

[Bantamzen]

I do not know if she as been bullying or not, but it seems these Civil Servants are a bunch of snowflakes (oh I was sworn at by my boss!). Well I and everybody else I worked with (office environment) were sworn at by their boss over the whole 41 years of may career, that I gave up in 2012. By that time swearing at and by colleagues (both sexes), to suppliers and sometimes bosses was just a daily way of life.
Bullying these days seems to be being made to follow a policy by your boss you personally do not agree with, which is actually management.
Civil Servants need to remember they support not run the government (whatever colour, even if one you do not support). The clue is in the second word of their title "servant"

Oh boy, here we go. The snowflake effect.....

Further upthread is some discussion on what the civil service is actually there for, and a clue is not just to pander to minister's every whim. I really suggest you re-read it, understanding what the civil service is, how it works, & why it must be bi-partisan is key to understanding why ministers cannot, and must not just be given free reign to do what they feel like.

Edit: And has already been pointed out, the civil service doesn't change hands every time a new political party, or party leader takes over. That means they have to handle policy making across different parties, different leaders, different goals and still make policies work. If they just "did what they were told", every time we had a change of party, PM or cabinet reshuffle, every piece of work would have to be torn up and restarted.

 

[alex397]

I do not know if she as been bullying or not, but it seems these Civil Servants are a bunch of snowflakes (oh I was sworn at by my boss!). Well I and everybody else I worked with (office environment) were sworn at by their boss over the whole 41 years of may career, that I gave up in 2012. By that time swearing at and by colleagues (both sexes), to suppliers and sometimes bosses was just a daily way of life.
Bullying these days seems to be being made to follow a policy by your boss you personally do not agree with, which is actually management.
Civil Servants need to remember they support not run the government (whatever colour, even if one you do not support). The clue is in the second word of their title "servant"

Ah, 'snowflakes'. A ridiculous word used to just dismiss other people's points of view. The swearing is just one part of these allegations. I think most people agree that swearing at people in the workplace isn't exactly professional behaviour, and I have yet to experience it in my career. I think it is reasonable for employees to take issue with behavior from management, and not just accept whatever they do.
As others have stated, its not the Home Office's job to just do what the Government says.

 

[Busaholic]

I was responding to the suggestion that she was of low intellect, which I don’t think is correct. Her behaviour is of course a different matter.

I personally don't believe she's of low intellect in comparison to the general population, but I'd rather hope for people of both above average intellect and with some empathy for the 'common people' to be ministers, particularly in as important a job as Home Secretary. I've only ever met one, Willie Whitelaw, a far more intelligent man than he pretended to be, and without whom the (top secret) negotiations with Sinn Fein/IRA that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement would probably not have happened. With Patel, I noticed a comment by Quentin Letts, who the Times has unaccountably imo let be its Parliamentary sketchwriter, just before the recent events. He wrote that she 'seemed enormously pleased with herself' which is about as damning as he ever gets in describing a Tory government minister!