International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   General UK politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346868)

Planigale 23rd November 2020 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13303562)
You have seemingly equated "plain speaking" with what she did (and not alleged - the report found she had breached the code). Plus you have named politicians that were in power before the "Ministerial Code" was put in place - (which was if memory serves me right the policy of Cameron and Clegg) perhaps the politicians you mentioned were the reason for having a ministerial code in the first place?

I also think we are at best getting what she actually did through the government's spin and that sounds bad enough. If it is true that someone attempted suicide because of how she treated them then it is well beyond any "bullying" I've had to deal with over the last 30 years or so across multiple large international companies and I've had to deal with a lot of these types of complaints over the years.

(Bullying in quotes not to downplay it but to indicate in that past such behaviour would not have been classed as bullying but as harassment/intimidation/sexism or some such variant as bullying as a classification on its own is quite new.)

The Torys hoisted by their own petard for introducing standards into politics!
I have not read the report and do not know the details.

From the BBC
Quote:

Legal correspondence seen by the BBC show a junior employee at the DWP brought a formal complaint of bullying and harassment against the department, including Ms Patel, after being dismissed from her role in October 2015.
The staff member's grievance letter alleges she had previously attempted to kill herself after reporting similar allegations of workplace bullying concerning another individual in 2014, before Ms Patel was a minister.
The individual's first suicide attempt was before she had any contact with Ms. Patel. The bullying occurred before Ms. Patel was a minister. She may have been the minister when the court case was brought, and may have been when the person took the next overdose. Clearly it would be wrong to attribute the whole of this persons distress to Ms. Patel, according to the record she left two weeks after Ms. Patel came into post, but according to the above the problems had been longstanding prior to her arrival.

ETA

I wonder if any of the others against whom allegations were made have been sacked? Perhaps they were all white men?

Vixen 23rd November 2020 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13302658)
Yes in the public sector bullying is one of the things that one can be instantly suspended for. Certainly her behaviour should have been addressed when she was earlier in her career. But I wonder if there is a racist element to this? How much do you think this is because as an Asian woman she is expected to behave in a submissive way and if she swears and shouts this has more of an impact and is less forgiven than if a man behaved this way. Mo Mowlam, a labour minister shouted and swore but this was 'endearing'. John Reid was regarded as blunt spoken. Both were white working class, was bad language and shouting culturally acceptable for them but not her? There is a phenomenon that white men get away with things that ethnic minorities are disciplined for. was her behaviour that unusual? How many ministers rant and rave at times? It took me ten seconds to find blunt spoken John Reid, and I know from having a friend who worked for MM that multiple complaints were made by her civil servants to Tony Blair about her behaviour.

But didn't the report mitigate for that? Whilst it might an historical truth that the working classes resented having woman or an ethnic minority person as their boss, so behaved in a resistant and hostile manner, nonetheless it is also well-known that in Indian culture (which is also very much class-based, as is British culture) that 'you suck up↑ and kick down ↓' . By this, it means you sycophantically crawl to your bosses but bully those lower down. So, whilst Johnson and his chums think the 'pritster' is charming and has been misunderstood, her underlings in the Civil Service may have had a very different experience of her. It is a common tactic of an office bully to surround him or herself with an inner circle.

This type of behaviour is very damaging for the victims of the bully. It can cause nervous breakdown (as happened to two friends of mine). Whilst sure, there are still people around who resent women and 'ethnics' as their bosses, I fail to see how bullying resolves this. There are proper HR procedures to deal with this. It is a cop out to say it is 'racism' that forced Patel to be a bully.

Planigale 23rd November 2020 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13303582)
But didn't the report mitigate for that? Whilst it might an historical truth that the working classes resented having woman or an ethnic minority person as their boss, so behaved in a resistant and hostile manner, nonetheless it is also well-known that in Indian culture (which is also very much class-based, as is British culture) that 'you suck up↑ and kick down ↓' . By this, it means you sycophantically crawl to your bosses but bully those lower down. So, whilst Johnson and his chums think the 'pritster' is charming and has been misunderstood, her underlings in the Civil Service may have had a very different experience of her. It is a common tactic of an office bully to surround him or herself with an inner circle.

This type of behaviour is very damaging for the victims of the bully. It can cause nervous breakdown (as happened to two friends of mine). Whilst sure, there are still people around who resent women and 'ethnics' as their bosses, I fail to see how bullying resolves this. There are proper HR procedures to deal with this. It is a cop out to say it is 'racism' that forced Patel to be a bully.

I haven't read the report. My issue would be whether this is a correctable behaviour, if so then she needs assistance in improving her management style. If not then she should not be a minister.

Dave Rogers 23rd November 2020 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13302930)
An 88? That would be a bit bigger than a Frigate!
That would be a Third Rate and a Ship of the Line.

True, but Trebuchet said 38, which was a very common rating for a frigate circa.1800.

Dave

Darat 23rd November 2020 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13303571)
The Torys hoisted by their own petard for introducing standards into politics!
I have not read the report and do not know the details.

...snip...

None of us have....

Do you agree then that your use of politicians' behaviour prior to the Ministerial Code isn't a support for this case being caused by institutional racism?

And I am not saying there isn't institutional racism within the civil service and the government, just that in this case there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.

I am happy to see whatever evidence you think supports that this case is in fact caused or heavily influenced by institutional racism.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13303571)

From the BBC


The individual's first suicide attempt was before she had any contact with Ms. Patel. The bullying occurred before Ms. Patel was a minister. She may have been the minister when the court case was brought, and may have been when the person took the next overdose. Clearly it would be wrong to attribute the whole of this persons distress to Ms. Patel, according to the record she left two weeks after Ms. Patel came into post, but according to the above the problems had been longstanding prior to her arrival.

ETA

I wonder if any of the others against whom allegations were made have been sacked? Perhaps they were all white men?

Shouldn't you let the evidence lead to a conclusion ?

Darat 23rd November 2020 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13303589)
I haven't read the report. My issue would be whether this is a correctable behaviour, if so then she needs assistance in improving her management style. If not then she should not be a minister.

Again we are all only getting titbits of information so I am dubious of the quality of the "facts" however from what we have in front of us one person who in fact has a case going to tribunal in which she is named states that she had previously been warned about her behaviour.

(That person's evidence wasn't considered by the inquiry because of the ongoing legal case.)

Captain_Swoop 23rd November 2020 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13303590)
True, but Trebuchet said 38, which was a very common rating for a frigate circa.1800.

Dave

Haha just noticed that! could have sworn it was 88!!!!!

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd November 2020 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13303571)
From the BBC


The individual's first suicide attempt was before she had any contact with Ms. Patel. The bullying occurred before Ms. Patel was a minister. She may have been the minister when the court case was brought, and may have been when the person took the next overdose. Clearly it would be wrong to attribute the whole of this persons distress to Ms. Patel, according to the record she left two weeks after Ms. Patel came into post, but according to the above the problems had been longstanding prior to her arrival.

Can you link to the story, please?

Lothian 23rd November 2020 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13303693)
Can you link to the story, please?

Link

Planigale 23rd November 2020 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13303693)
Can you link to the story, please?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51705069

gypsyjackson 23rd November 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13303562)
You have seemingly equated "plain speaking" with what she did (and not alleged - the report found she had breached the code). Plus you have named politicians that were in power before the "Ministerial Code" was put in place - (which was if memory serves me right the policy of Cameron and Clegg) perhaps the politicians you mentioned were the reason for having a ministerial code in the first place?)

There’s been a written Ministerial code since at least the first time I worked in a UK Govt department, which was 1999. Blunkett resigned over a breach of the Code in 2004. But it’s lost in the midst of time and memory what provisions it had on bullying, harassment and discrimination, and whether those were added recently, sorry. Each PM since Brown has issued a new version on attaining office. The Johnson version is here, if you’re interested: Current Ministerial Code

Darat 23rd November 2020 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson (Post 13304505)
Thereís been a written Ministerial code since at least the first time I worked in a UK Govt department, which was 1999. Blunkett resigned over a breach of the Code in 2004. But itís lost in the midst of time and memory what provisions it had on bullying, harassment and discrimination, and whether those were added recently, sorry. Each PM since Brown has issued a new version on attaining office. The Johnson version is here, if youíre interested: Current Ministerial Code

Thanks for the background info.

gypsyjackson 23rd November 2020 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13304517)
Thanks for the background info.

You’re welcome. I tried to find older versions of the Code without success, but I have now found a history of the Code at the Institute for Government website. History of the Ministerial Code

You’ll be interested in the last para:
Quote:

The most recent update was in August 2019, when Boris Johnson became prime minister. The bulk of the code is the same as the version issued by Theresa May. Prior to that, it was updated in January 2018, following misconduct allegations against former ministers Michael Fallon, Priti Patel and Damian Green. Changes were made to the section on conduct during foreign visits and to include a section about harassment and inappropriate behaviour.
So it looks like the specific BHD section was added as a result of Patel’s earlier behaviour*, along with Fallon’s and Green’s.

I am actually surprised at that, as BHD has been monitored (and sometimes even acted on!) for civil servants for a long time. Perhaps it was thought that Ministers wouldn’t stoop to such behaviour.

* ETA - actually, this could be wrong. While there were allegations of Patel’s bullying behaviour at DFID, it’s not clear these were ever raised formally under the Code. The element that she resigned from DFID over, inappropriately making contact with a foreign government, appears to have been added to the Code in the section on conduct during foreign visits.

Squeegee Beckenheim 24th November 2020 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 13303721)

I honestly don't know what's happened to this website recently, where it now seems that providing a citation is seen as a terrible imposition, and asking for a citation is seen as the height of unreasonableness.

People do understand the role that evidence and primary sources play in scepticism, don't they? And they have looked at the name of the website that they're posting on, haven't they? This is really, really basic stuff.

The board rules, for reference:

Quote:

The ISF has adopted a policy of treating all published material as if it was copyrighted regardless of its legal copyright status. (This includes articles, images and other media.)

[...]

All quoted material should be credited to the original author or publisher and a link provided (when available) to the original work.

Squeegee Beckenheim 24th November 2020 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13304211)

Thanks. I don't think there's anything in there that mitigates Patel's behaviour

ceptimus 24th November 2020 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson (Post 13304505)
Blunkett resigned over a breach of the Code in 2004.

As is the case with many prominent politicians, he resigned, and then came back. Some politicians do this multiple times. Blunkett sits in the House of Lords now, so probably won't need to resign again because "the Code" for lords seems to be rather more lax than the already pretty lax ones for ministers and MPs.

Darat 24th November 2020 08:57 AM

How pathetic - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55057680 “ their mass walkout from Tuesday's [NEC] virtual meeting”

They must have really clicked hard!

Darat 24th November 2020 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson (Post 13304505)
Thereís been a written Ministerial code since at least the first time I worked in a UK Govt department, which was 1999. Blunkett resigned over a breach of the Code in 2004. But itís lost in the midst of time and memory what provisions it had on bullying, harassment and discrimination, and whether those were added recently, sorry. Each PM since Brown has issued a new version on attaining office. The Johnson version is here, if youíre interested: Current Ministerial Code

I vaguely recalled Blunkettís resignation - the visa for a nanny stayed in my mind, so Iíve gone and read a few articles about it from the time. Iím astonished to learn that the bod who ran the inquiry didnít know there was a ministerial code!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/...nkett.politics

Quote:

...snip....

Sir Alan told MPs earlier this month: "Such as I do know about it are matters I have learned since I started the inquiry and are certainly not things that I knew when I was asked to undertake it.'

He also disclosed that John Gieve, permanent secretary at the Home Office, who asked him to conduct the inquiry never mentioned the existence of the code.

...snip...
At least things seem to have changed and everyone knows about the code now, even if they do breach it! :)

Nessie 24th November 2020 09:46 AM

Its all about who you know and are in favour with. Patel is now totally beholden to Johnson.

Darat 26th November 2020 05:14 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Trying to check what tier I am in...

The Don 26th November 2020 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13306919)
Trying to check what tier I am in...

What a pathetic mess :mad:

zooterkin 26th November 2020 05:41 AM

What tier am I in? Latest Covid rules in England post-lockdown

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...land-local-map

Darat 26th November 2020 09:18 AM

I suspect the lookup website had a few more visitors than usual when I was trying. No one could have predicted that...

Dave Rogers 26th November 2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13307064)
I suspect the lookup website had a few more visitors than usual when I was trying. No one could have predicted that...

Well, except Dominic Cummings, who is probably going to predict it some time in the next couple of days.

Dave

Darat 26th November 2020 09:22 AM

Serious question as I'm a tad unsure, I am in a tier 2 area as is London, to travel into London has me going via Slough train station and Slough is in Tier 3. Is that journey fine?

Wudang 26th November 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13307065)
Well, except Dominic Cummings, who is probably going to predict it some time in the next couple of days.

Dave


Gov.uk totally ripped off Dominic Cummings.


eta: Conjugation. Should that be "Gov.uk is going to have totally ripped off Dominic Cummings."?

P.J. Denyer 26th November 2020 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13307067)
Serious question as I'm a tad unsure, I am in a tier 2 area as is London, to travel into London has me going via Slough train station and Slough is in Tier 3. Is that journey fine?

I think it actually depends on the reason for the journey. Okay if for work otherwise not sure.

ceptimus 26th November 2020 10:10 AM

I'm in a Tier 3 area, but I can walk to a pub half a mile away that's over the county border in Tier 2. Not that I would, of course - I've not been in a pub or restaurant since January - but plenty of my neighbours will make the journey. They wouldn't walk, though - they use their cars for any journey more than a couple of hundred yards.

PPL 26th November 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 13307111)
I'm in a Tier 3 area, but I can walk to a pub half a mile away that's over the county border in Tier 2. Not that I would, of course - I've not been in a pub or restaurant since January - but plenty of my neighbours will make the journey. They wouldn't walk, though - they use their cars for any journey more than a couple of hundred yards.

:D <--- sorry I don't have anything more constructive than that to contribute. Some of my own neighbours won't walk to the end of the street. :confused::D

Archie Gemmill Goal 26th November 2020 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13307067)
Serious question as I'm a tad unsure, I am in a tier 2 area as is London, to travel into London has me going via Slough train station and Slough is in Tier 3. Is that journey fine?

Yes according to this its ok to pass through tier 3 as pat of a longer journey

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-b1761760.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 13307111)
I'm in a Tier 3 area, but I can walk to a pub half a mile away that's over the county border in Tier 2. Not that I would, of course - I've not been in a pub or restaurant since January - but plenty of my neighbours will make the journey. They wouldn't walk, though - they use their cars for any journey more than a couple of hundred yards.

Not if you are following the rules you can't. you aren't allowed to travel to a tier 3 area from a tier 2 or vice versa.

Tolls 27th November 2020 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13307241)
Yes according to this its ok to pass through tier 3 as pat of a longer journey

Unless someone gets on at Slough, in which case you all have ot go home again.

I may have made that bit up.

Dave Rogers 27th November 2020 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 13307648)
Unless someone gets on at Slough, in which case you all have ot go home again.

I think that's only an applicable rule when quadruple reverse shunts are enabled, though Wimbledon is still a valid move.

Dave

catsmate 27th November 2020 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13307064)
I suspect the lookup website had a few more visitors than usual when I was trying. No one could have predicted that...

This is why sensible organisations do capacity forecasting and planning and use cloud hosting that can upscale rapidly when needed. Simples.

catsmate 27th November 2020 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13307067)
Serious question as I'm a tad unsure, I am in a tier 2 area as is London, to travel into London has me going via Slough train station and Slough is in Tier 3. Is that journey fine?

Well, as a general principle, don't enter Slough.....

Is a railway station a "public space"? If so my quick skim of the UK's rules suggest only six people may be there at once.

Pixel42 27th November 2020 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13307655)
I think that's only an applicable rule when quadruple reverse shunts are enabled, though Wimbledon is still a valid move.

Dave

Unless you're in nip, of course.

Darat 27th November 2020 11:26 AM

The Guardian: Huge wealth of Rishi Sunak's family not declared in ministerial register.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...erial-register

One had wondered how he made it to Chancellor so young.

Captain_Swoop 1st December 2020 10:43 AM

Jacob Rees-Mogg tweeted
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
The first duty of the British government is to its subjects. The Chancellor is providing £4 billion of taxpayers’ money to support the economies of the midlands and the north this parliament.

Captain_Swoop 1st December 2020 10:44 AM

When did we become 'subjects' of Rees-Mogg?

Lothian 1st December 2020 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13311485)
Jacob Rees-Mogg tweeted
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
The first duty of the British government is to its subjects. The Chancellor is providing £4 billion of taxpayersí money to support the economies of the midlands and the north this parliament.

Midlands and North? Are they Tory party donors?

Captain_Swoop 3rd December 2020 05:35 PM

The government has cut £1bn from the rail infrastructure budget following the chancellor's Spending Review.
Rishi Sunak had previously promised record infrastructure investment as part of the government's "levelling up" agenda.
Until now, Network Rail's "enhancement" budget for the five year period from 2019-24 had been set at £10.4bn.
But, this week rail minister Chris Heaton-Harris said that the budget would now be £9.4bn.
That has put a question mark over some long-planned improvements to rail infrastructure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55182000

But they will keep pouring billions and billions down the HS2 ********.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.