Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
Just because Bernie's supporters make the most noise doesn't mean they have the most support. A lesson that seemingly has to be learnt again and again.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
It’s like he designed a great car and then it spun off the road.
It hit black ice or something....
Exactly. Rcs designed the car to be fast and luxurious but didn’t consider safety or road handling. When he took it out on the road it ran into unexpected conditions and the rest is history.
Enough analogies already! Can't we go back to themed puns?
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Absolute bollocks.
Good luck,
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
Just because Bernie's supporters make the most noise doesn't mean they have the most support. A lesson that seemingly has to be learnt again and again.
If what you said is true then how do you explain Jeremy Corbyn's 150 seat majority?
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
It's because of the easily influenced like you that people like SeanT are bundled off to the rear in wartime.
Actually, my friend, as Foxy demonstrated the other day with a link on this site, I was referring to the trouble we were in about coronavirus before Eadric. And I warned a good friend of mine to get out of the stock market 2 months ago for the same reason. I then waivered with the slow pick up in China, but now know for sure that Sean T was correct about this.
It shows you in poor light that you don't just admit it.
On the subject of herding, it's a little like suggesting that because I believe the science of climate change is by now irrefutable that this, in some way, makes me less of a leader and more of a sheep. That doesn't really say a lot for your intellectual faculties.
We know Eadric was late to the party, because Corona was a story thru much of January, before Eadric existed as an account.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Then, please let's hear from the junior advisors themselves.
Actually, this happened to me. Someone complained on my behalf that someone else was bullying me. I can speak for myself, I don't need someone complaining vicariously on my behalf. I suspect their motives.
Also, you are wrong. Sir Philip is claiming he personally was bullied. Read the first sentence of the Guardian article
"Sir Philip Rutnam, the senior civil servant who resigned on Saturday claiming he was bullied and forced from office, has begun legal action against the government over his treatment by Priti Patel, his union has told the Guardian."
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
When can a government not be brave in the immediate aftermath of winning a very sizable victory? That will be both good and bad, but on balance I'd think it better that a government flush wih victory should not spend its time being petrified of some bad headlines and a dip in polling at such a time by being brave.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Looking at this outbreak from a maths background, two concepts spring to mind: 1) exponential growth, which had been well discussed; and 2) catastrophe theory, which has been less so.
Catastrophe theory is essentially the study of what happens in non-linear systems where a small change causes a sudden very large change (think a landslide), where it is often highly unpredictable in advance what the breaking point will be.
The relevance here is the impact on healthcare systems and society. This 'may' only be 10x worse than normal flu in isolation, but that places no limit on what the impact will be in certain countries when they reach breaking point. Some countries (hopefully the UK from our initial response) may only see a bad flu season plus slowing economic growth, but others (see Iran...) won't be so lucky.
On 1. Sigmoid aka logistic growth ist the usual pattern for disease counts, which in the "take off" stage is indistinguishable from exponential growth, which is where we are now. Wuhan could well be in the linear stage in the middle, before the tailing off.
On 2. Your right. And for those who don't know, a catastrophe in this sense does not have to be a disaster, but where an overhanging cliff edge in the mathematical functon is reached and there is suddenly a drop to another smooth part of the function. If a mathematical catastrophe point is reached in the spread of this virus, it would be a human catastrophe as well.
This type of problem is modelled in the applied maths and physics fields where the inputs can be accurately controlled and the occurrence of a catastrophic event easily measured. Such models are rarely fitted in data analysis, although a higly non-linear model like a neural network might find such behaviour. The problem is you need shed loads of data to have a chance of modelling it, and we have at the moment very limited data.
TL;DR catastrophe theory models might be relevant, but aren't going to help us at this stage, due to lack of information.
FFS!!
It's easy, and it's easy to understand without you two arsing about with terms you clearly only vaguely understand;
Exponential = cockroaches breeding, but more scary.
Chaotic processes = who knows what, but when there's a reinforcement process then they can spin out of control.
(Chaos/Catastophe/non-linear are much the same)
The spread of a virus can be at worst exponential. That's very bad though - a doubling with every handshake or other contact frequency.
The death rate has much more to do with non-linear behavior. Three processes fighting it out - infection. immunity, and cure. (Who knows)
From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.
I disagree.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.
Yes, in the initial period now and next year I would agree with that. I was thinking more long term in terms of the effect of a large number of deaths of the retired.
Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
Just because Bernie's supporters make the most noise doesn't mean they have the most support. A lesson that seemingly has to be learnt again and again.
It's not being learned over and over again, it doesn't seem to get learned at all.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
I posted an analogy about a fire in a house, and before long, people had extended the analogy all the way back to Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, and the invention of alternating current.
I tried to move the discussion on to an analogy about your analogy. Is this better?
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the burno!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I have done it soberly, rationally and calculatedly. Just like I do with my betting. And I bet I thought about it weeks before you.
What I haven't done is been a total fucking bore about it on here night and day because I'm an absolute drama queen who thinks there's no difference between keeping calm and being ignorant, and so the only sign of being informed is to lose your shit about it every 42 minutes.
But, you know this. You're just a follower who struggles with independent thought and who's very easily influenced by others.
And so, we feel a bit sorry for you - and we ignore you.
Dude, you are young, your kids are very young, you should (personally) be fine, and they should be fine. Of course you may have relatives and friends who are greatly at risk.
We all need to stop arguing and accept that this is a near-certain disaster looming, and we all need to readjust.
(1) I'm not young (2) Don't mention or invoke my children in this again please (3) If a flu pandemic was a 3 out of 10 it doesn't then follow that I think this is a 0 out of 10 just because you think it's a 10 out of 10 and I'm arguing it's just a 5 or 6 out of 10. (4) Your last point is a strawman: I have made adjustments and am fully prepared for adjustments.
I will continue to call out your incessant and hyperbolic posts until you rein it in.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Absolute bollocks.
Good luck,
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.
From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.
I know what I would choose if I had control of over which 20% died. Ultimately it comes down to the economic cost of a human life, and I am enormously grateful that I will almost certainly never have to make that choice.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.
From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.
I disagree.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.
Yes, in the initial period now and next year I would agree with that. I was thinking more long term in terms of the effect of a large number of deaths of the retired.
Historians argue that in the long run the Black Death delivered economic benefits, by kick starting the demise of feudalism
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Absolute bollocks.
Good luck,
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
What is he "right" about that I'm "wrong" about?
Actually, don't bother answering that. Because you can't without creating a strawman. And I'm simply bored of talking about this with you.
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...
Wow. Ok.
"victims".
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄
To be fair, he put the word alleged before "bullying". If he put it in front of "victims" as well, then the sentence would have scanned poorly.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...
Wow. Ok.
"victims".
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄
To be fair, he put the word alleged before "bullying". If he put it in front of "victims" as well, then the sentence would have scanned poorly.
There is NO FORMAL COMPLAINT MECHANISM. Which is why there have been zero formal complaints.
From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.
I disagree.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.
Yes, in the initial period now and next year I would agree with that. I was thinking more long term in terms of the effect of a large number of deaths of the retired.
There is a decent chance it will kick some of our weaker looking final salary pension schemes back towards surplus.
Nice big bump for the Treasury from IHT receipts as well. impact on the housing market is, um, uncertain.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.
I am still waiting for the airport thriller next novel set in an internet forum where our hero passes himself off as an ordinary poster when really he is investigating the evil duo of Smith & Son who challenge democracy and freedom by wagering insane amount of money in the international betting markets in order to skew elections so that they own all the money in the western banking system.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.
Again, there's a bit of a gap between innocent until proven guilty and simply calling bullshit. Calling bullshit is making a pretty firm determination, one I suspect it would be harder to resile from should evidence then emerge to satisfaction because you're pretty committed. As compared to not calling bullshit, but treating things seriously without simply taking any allegation as proof in itself - as has been gone over a lot with various police investigatory bungling.
I don't think most people (besides some of the aforementioned police) would have a problem with innocent until proven guilty (Edit: though as cyclefree notes the test is likely not as severe). How you get to calling bullshit on it from there I do not know.
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...
Wow. Ok.
"victims".
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄
To be fair, he put the word alleged before "bullying". If he put it in front of "victims" as well, then the sentence would have scanned poorly.
Fair point but it scanned poorly to me like a split infinitive.
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
China doesn't have a free health service?
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
A call I have not made.
Indeed. It is a call Labour and a few posters here (I believe) have made though. That she should be replaced until this is investigated.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.
I think part of the issue with discussing Covid-19 is that it is difficult to propose a nuanced outcome to the epidemic without either being accused of apocalyptic scaremongering (from more optimistic people) or blasé ignorance (from more pessimistic people).
At this stage I think the pattern of infection suggests that we can't contain the virus; that the overall mortality rate is low; that older people and people with preexisting health conditions are significantly more likely to die; and that there will be significant social, political and economic consequences.
The best comparison might be to 9/11. From a purely dispassionate standpoint, 3000 deaths from a terrorist incident is not the apocalypse, and I would assume that more people around the world died from starvation or preventable illnesses on September 11th 2001 than from terrorism. However, 9/11 had huge geopolitical consequences that are still evident today. Similiarly, although Covid-19 isn't the apocalypse, it is still going to shape government and corporate policies moving forward. I imagine that we will be able to talk of "pre" and "post" Covid-19 societies and economies.
At one end of the scale, the impossibility of containing outbreaks such as these in 'free' Western countries could help to justify more intensive tracking of individual citizens (as is the case in China) to help contact anyone who might have been exposed to the virus.
On the other, this is a huge moment for remote working - some huge businesses have been forced into a grand experiment by asking their employees to work from home, and I would expect that they will take the opportunity to evaluate staff productivity when working remotely, which might lead to post-virus changes to their work structure.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
A call I have not made.
If you wish, then based on Ms Patel's past performances on countering CounterTerrorism as well as some of her sartorial crimes, I shall be happy to call for her to go now.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases. Or in disciplinary investigations involving personal conduct (and I’ve been involved in more than a few, professionally). “Balance of probabilities” is the test.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.
There are methods to formally complain today, the FDA is just unhappy with how the complaints are then handled and would like a different method to handle the complaint.
Doesn't mean formal complaints aren't permitted currently. They are, but none were ever made.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said the UK government already had a "robust process" for dealing with complaints.
"Where a civil servant has experienced any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination by a minister they are able to raise this through their line management chain," they said. "It will be escalated to the departmental permanent secretary and the Cabinet Office."
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit
How do you actually do that? I hear Amercians say it "I call bullsh*t" and I have visions of people opening their front doors and shouting "Bullsh*t!" like it is a dog that has gone missing.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases. Or in disciplinary investigations involving personal conduct (and I’ve been involved in more than a few, professionally). “Balance of probabilities” is the test.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.
Indeed and right now the evidence I see says on a balance of probabilities this is people who dislike Patel's politics out to get her.
That's based on slim evidence, but that's all we have, with zero formal complaints having been issued before this blew up. If there were a track record of complaints before this blew up that might be a different matter.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.
I am still waiting for the airport thriller next novel set in an internet forum where our hero passes himself off as an ordinary poster when really he is investigating the evil duo of Smith & Son who challenge democracy and freedom by wagering insane amount of money in the international betting markets in order to skew elections so that they own all the money in the western banking system.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......
Weirdly though there is in reality a similar duo. Smithson and son. Shrewd operators though they undoubtedly are, they're very much the good guys. (is that a rope i see before my neck!)
Newsnight on Bloomberg, it's like the Mary Celeste in his campaign offices...
Lap it up, drink it in
One thing we should be aware of tonight is not to follow the markets.
There's a belief they often "know" something whereas they often don't and are slow to react to trends.
Agreed. In my experience the markets lag PB (and the polling evidence) by a significant margin. I've made a decent amount of money for a student on SCons 2015, Con majority 2019, and the various ups and downs of this Dem race (just before SC it became clear that it was basically a two horse race).
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
Well rcs was right, its not just unlikely its categorically untrue. Even the article linked to shows there is a complaints mechanism at present.
The union wishes there were a different mechanism like in Scotland, that's not the same as saying there is no mechanism to file a complaint.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit
How do you actually do that? I hear Amercians say it "I call bullsh*t" and I have visions of people opening their front doors and shouting "Bullsh*t!" like it is a dog that has gone missing.
Prediction: the coronavirus threat will suspend normal politics to such an extent that for the next 6 months the Government can behave as if it had a majority of 500. Things that would never have been allowed to stand or pass before will be ignored or receive mere shrugs.
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
China doesn't have a free health service?
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
China doesn't have a free health service?
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
It isn't so expensive.
From a westerners perspective, or from a Chinese peasants perspective?
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
A call I have not made.
If you wish, then based on Ms Patel's past performances on countering CounterTerrorism as well as some of her sartorial crimes, I shall be happy to call for her to go now.
I am in 2 minds about her. She can appear quite dim - the counter-terrorism interview and misleading the House of Commons over the number of EU citizens with settled status, for instance. She was sacked for lying and ignoring the rules and I do wonder how attached to the rule of law she is. Plus her sartorial crimes.
OTOH her instincts were right over HK, contrary to Raab’s and she showed a very human empathy with Harry Dunn’s family. And there are reports that the Home Office has resisted giving her a copy of the report on grooming gangs which, if true, seems extraordinary.
I do wonder whether her real problem is that she has been promoted too early and that some of the allegations arise from her not having the experience or guile to know how to deal with those reporting to her. I suspect also that she may be good at managing up but not at managing down and has insufficient experience actually how to get things done in a large organisation, even one reporting to you. That may be an overly charitable view. But the Home Office is not exactly famed for its competence, is it?
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
China doesn't have a free health service?
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
It isn't so expensive.
From a westerners perspective, or from a Chinese peasants perspective?
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Forma
No formal complaineople put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formanister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
Well rcs was right, its not just unlikely its categorically untrue. Even the article linked to shows there is a complaints mechanism at present.
The union wishes there were a different mechanism like in Scotland, that's not the same as saying there is no mechanism to file a complaint.
I deliberately extended the point to include procedures which were confused or lacking (which is a matter of personal perception), not simply absent entirely. That they do exist here may well be right, but the point was it would not be that surprising if there were none. It's like finding a parody Trump tweet that says something stupid - sure, its important to know that it is not real in this case and so what is right and and what is wrong, but even if right it would not be unlikely that he would say something stupid. So they have procedures here, fine, I for one didn't say they didn't, it was a wider comment about poor procedures in administration being generally likely.
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
China doesn't have a free health service?
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
It isn't so expensive.
Other than clearly being the biggest bill in the world.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.
I am still waiting for the airport thriller next novel set in an internet forum where our hero passes himself off as an ordinary poster when really he is investigating the evil duo of Smith & Son who challenge democracy and freedom by wagering insane amount of money in the international betting markets in order to skew elections so that they own all the money in the western banking system.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......
Weirdly though there is in reality a similar duo. Smithson and son. Shrewd operators though they undoubtedly are, they're very much the good guys. (is that a rope i see before my neck!)
That will never make a decent plot though... you need villians
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases. Or in disciplinary investigations involving personal conduct (and I’ve been involved in more than a few, professionally). “Balance of probabilities” is the test.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.
Indeed and right now the evidence I see says on a balance of probabilities this is people who dislike Patel's politics out to get her.
That's based on slim evidence, but that's all we have, with zero formal complaints having been issued before this blew up. If there were a track record of complaints before this blew up that might be a different matter.
Not true. There was at least one case of a complaint leading to a payout of £25k to the complainant.
Of course. Even in the normal course of things people only go when politically the cost of retaining them is too high, not because of any logic of if the offense (proven or otherwise) merits that. Still worth seeing a process through so one can decide at the conclusion if it was a storm in a teacup or a whitewash, but alleged or proven facts are only part of it, and not even the major part.
I deliberately extended the point to include procedures which were confused or lacking (which is a matter of personal perception), not simply absent entirely. That they do exist here may well be right, but the point was it would not be that surprising if there were none. It's like finding a parody Trump tweet that says something stupid - sure, its important to know that it is not real in this case and so what is right and and what is wrong, but even if right it would not be unlikely that he would say something stupid. So they have procedures here, fine, I for one didn't say they didn't, it was a wider comment about poor procedures in administration being generally likely.
You didn't say it, @IanB2 mistakenly said it, which is whom rcs1000 replied to.
As both articles @IanB2 quoted said there are existing complaint procedures even if the union wishes the way they are handled is different - and no complaints were ever filed, that is the one fact we know in this saga already before the investigation begins.
Maybe there were some actions Patel took that were so egregious, so horrific, it led to no choice but to resign and not put in a complaint. Seems unlikely to me, but its possible. Its possible that there were some more minor issues that could have had a complaint which could have led to a ticking off or training or a suggestion to handle matters differently next time if a complaint had been investigated . . . if that's the case then Patel should stay as she would have if proper procedures had been followed.
Patel should go if she's committed Gross Misconduct - yet there are no complaints on the record to suggest that.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
You clearly missed the Chief Science Officer earlier who lucidly explained why you are wrong.
The time may come when that is necessary but that will depend upon science, not panicking. If we start doing that now when its not necessary as its not in the wild in this country yet, then what happens in 2 months time if the government believes it is necessary by then due to the science and evidence - but we've already had 2 months of lockdown and can't cope with another 2 months?
If you're going to do that you have to do it at the right time. It would need to be a Goldilocks lockdown, not too early, not too late.
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.
It isn't necessary but if you haven't first tried a grievance you are unlikely to win as your employer can claim they would have dealt with it if you had followed the grievance procedure. Even if you do win, any damages awarded can be reduced by up to 25%. Employment lawyers I know would always recommend going through the grievance procedure first.
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
Err, no.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?
Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!
Comments
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
But now it is all Biden vs Sanders.
If she cant win there is she out? as in even if she chooses to carry on will she just be ignored?
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Actually, this happened to me. Someone complained on my behalf that someone else was bullying me. I can speak for myself, I don't need someone complaining vicariously on my behalf. I suspect their motives.
Also, you are wrong. Sir Philip is claiming he personally was bullied. Read the first sentence of the Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/03/top-civil-servant-begins-legal-case-against-priti-patel-and-home-office
"Sir Philip Rutnam, the senior civil servant who resigned on Saturday claiming he was bullied and forced from office, has begun legal action against the government over his treatment by Priti Patel, his union has told the Guardian."
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Have I missed something?
It's easy, and it's easy to understand without you two arsing about with terms you clearly only vaguely understand;
Exponential = cockroaches breeding, but more scary.
Chaotic processes = who knows what, but when there's a reinforcement process then they can spin out of control.
(Chaos/Catastophe/non-linear are much the same)
The spread of a virus can be at worst exponential. That's very bad though - a doubling with every handshake or other contact frequency.
The death rate has much more to do with non-linear behavior. Three processes fighting it out - infection. immunity, and cure. (Who knows)
(2) Don't mention or invoke my children in this again please
(3) If a flu pandemic was a 3 out of 10 it doesn't then follow that I think this is a 0 out of 10 just because you think it's a 10 out of 10 and I'm arguing it's just a 5 or 6 out of 10.
(4) Your last point is a strawman: I have made adjustments and am fully prepared for adjustments.
I will continue to call out your incessant and hyperbolic posts until you rein it in.
Your choice.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-american-eggs-would-be-illegal-in-a-british-supermarket-and-vice-versa/
Actually, don't bother answering that. Because you can't without creating a strawman. And I'm simply bored of talking about this with you.
Go and enjoy Friends.
No, but the whole concert series will have to be cancelled before they have even started.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
There's a belief they often "know" something whereas they often don't and are slow to react to trends.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
Nice big bump for the Treasury from IHT receipts as well. impact on the housing market is, um, uncertain.
Bernie 3s
Betfair nom odds
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......
I don't think most people (besides some of the aforementioned police) would have a problem with innocent until proven guilty (Edit: though as cyclefree notes the test is likely not as severe). How you get to calling bullshit on it from there I do not know.
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
At this stage I think the pattern of infection suggests that we can't contain the virus; that the overall mortality rate is low; that older people and people with preexisting health conditions are significantly more likely to die; and that there will be significant social, political and economic consequences.
The best comparison might be to 9/11. From a purely dispassionate standpoint, 3000 deaths from a terrorist incident is not the apocalypse, and I would assume that more people around the world died from starvation or preventable illnesses on September 11th 2001 than from terrorism. However, 9/11 had huge geopolitical consequences that are still evident today. Similiarly, although Covid-19 isn't the apocalypse, it is still going to shape government and corporate policies moving forward. I imagine that we will be able to talk of "pre" and "post" Covid-19 societies and economies.
At one end of the scale, the impossibility of containing outbreaks such as these in 'free' Western countries could help to justify more intensive tracking of individual citizens (as is the case in China) to help contact anyone who might have been exposed to the virus.
On the other, this is a huge moment for remote working - some huge businesses have been forced into a grand experiment by asking their employees to work from home, and I would expect that they will take the opportunity to evaluate staff productivity when working remotely, which might lead to post-virus changes to their work structure.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.
Doesn't mean formal complaints aren't permitted currently. They are, but none were ever made.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said the UK government already had a "robust process" for dealing with complaints.
"Where a civil servant has experienced any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination by a minister they are able to raise this through their line management chain," they said. "It will be escalated to the departmental permanent secretary and the Cabinet Office."
What do your neighbours say?
That's based on slim evidence, but that's all we have, with zero formal complaints having been issued before this blew up. If there were a track record of complaints before this blew up that might be a different matter.
(is that a rope i see before my neck!)
The union wishes there were a different mechanism like in Scotland, that's not the same as saying there is no mechanism to file a complaint.
TL;DR: Priti's going nooooowhere.
OTOH her instincts were right over HK, contrary to Raab’s and she showed a very human empathy with Harry Dunn’s family. And there are reports that the Home Office has resisted giving her a copy of the report on grooming gangs which, if true, seems extraordinary.
I do wonder whether her real problem is that she has been promoted too early and that some of the allegations arise from her not having the experience or guile to know how to deal with those reporting to her. I suspect also that she may be good at managing up but not at managing down and has insufficient experience actually how to get things done in a large organisation, even one reporting to you. That may be an overly charitable view. But the Home Office is not exactly famed for its competence, is it?
I should let you buy me lunch!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
Edit: Or, you know, reading the thread.
As both articles @IanB2 quoted said there are existing complaint procedures even if the union wishes the way they are handled is different - and no complaints were ever filed, that is the one fact we know in this saga already before the investigation begins.
Maybe there were some actions Patel took that were so egregious, so horrific, it led to no choice but to resign and not put in a complaint. Seems unlikely to me, but its possible. Its possible that there were some more minor issues that could have had a complaint which could have led to a ticking off or training or a suggestion to handle matters differently next time if a complaint had been investigated . . . if that's the case then Patel should stay as she would have if proper procedures had been followed.
Patel should go if she's committed Gross Misconduct - yet there are no complaints on the record to suggest that.
Responding to the comments, a government spokesperson said: "Government departments have established procedures in place to deal with any complaints."
The time may come when that is necessary but that will depend upon science, not panicking. If we start doing that now when its not necessary as its not in the wild in this country yet, then what happens in 2 months time if the government believes it is necessary by then due to the science and evidence - but we've already had 2 months of lockdown and can't cope with another 2 months?
If you're going to do that you have to do it at the right time. It would need to be a Goldilocks lockdown, not too early, not too late.
"It is simply not good enough that there is currently no formal process for a civil servant to raise complaints against a minister."
Biden 43 Sanders 23 VA is the expectation