That reads like a company covering their backside over an over-zealous and abrasive manager, who having been told to rein it in a bit did so, so we’ll let this letter sit in her HR file for a couple of years in case something else comes up in the future. It doesn’t sound like gross misconduct or misleading someone, for which she could expect to be shown the door.
Where is the Bercow report? That was much more concerning.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
No, I dont think so, not necessarily at any rate (seriousness of the behaviour and how its addressed would matter), but I was commenting on your flippant dismissal of the specific point that people didn't complain about being bullied as they were not 'bothered' in your view. I think that's an unfair way of putting it when it would be very risky to raise even mild concerns about someone so much more powerful.
I'm saying if people have concerns they should be raised and addressed in the first instance. Concerns were raised (eventually) and were addressed satisfactorily apparently as soon as they were raised according to the independent investigator. That is good enough for me. .
You seem to have no regard to how in practical terms it will not be easy to make a complaint particularly if the culture expects you to just accept it.
Regardless, whether they could have been braver doesn't invalidate their feelings and concerns now identified as you have sought to do. That's one benefit of investigations as they may reveal wider issues while looking into a specific incident or person. You cannot just dismiss concerns identified as snowflakery because you dont like that they didn't come forward sooner.
Your attitude is shining through with the snowflake remark, that you would dismiss the concerns based on the timidity of those affected and makes your satisfaction of a sound resolution appear rather hollow given that attempt to belittle concerns based on triviality.
Relax, he's just forming a square around The Pritster.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
Make sure the vast majority of the press is on your side, no matter what.
Which democracy in the world would be immune from attack if the demos consistently voted for its own abolition by giving a majority to tyrants? I suspect we are better placed than many in that unlikely scenario. The Crown, the Armed Forces and the Courts would still be in play if nothing else.
That depends how consistently, but for instance Japan has a strong written constitution with an independently elected, non-partisan supreme court with long terms. It would be way harder to bring off an autogolpe than the UK where the only real check on a PM with a parliamentary majority for even a single term is the Queen, who as we saw with the prorogation will merrily sign off on whatever the PM puts in front of her.
So what's the supposedly sackable offence that everyone is going on about?
Uh, breach of the Ministerial Code?
A very half-hearted way of saying it if so.
That's just how investigators write.
That's the key thing. The report is polite, notes mitigating circumstances, but the conclusion is clear to those with eyes to see. Seriously- would any other Prime Minister have tried to keep a minister in place in this situation?
But we saw the same with Jenrick. And with Cummings. And with JRM (who, if he had a gram of honour, would have gone after the prorogation fiasco).
But Johnson's view has always been that, unless an external force can apply the rules to him, the rules don't exist. And since the next GE is four years away, the plebs can suck it up in the meantime.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
I loved living in a country where you turn up, pat the dogs outside, queue nicely, remember your name and address for the person behind the trestle table, admire the infants' artwork or exhortations to love Jesus a bit more and didn't need to prove who you are and then vote with a pencil on the end of a piece of string. It lasted an amazingly long time.
Proving who you are is now routine. There is no special group that will be put off by it apart from ultra libertarians and ultra anarchists. These will cancel each other out and will damage Lord Buckethead mostly. As long as they don't ban tying your dog outside the polling station, taking a photo and putting it online....
See point 2 which contradicts your claim that requiring id doesn't affect some groups disproportionately. When you introduce measures that make it harder to vote that are disproportionate to the problem they are meant to fix and you know it affects some groups more than others then it is voter suppression.
Thanks, interesting point. However the report you link to merges Photo ID with ID. I agree that ID should be simple and certainly not required in photo form. But apart from a minute number of committed contrarians (over represented in social media perhaps) everyone has some form of simple ID.
Not necessarily. In the trial the report discusses, 2000 are turned away of whom 750 don't come back. Point of voter suppression isn't to stop everyone from voting, but to nudge the odds in your favour by making it harder for people to vote who are less likely to vote for your guy. It can matter a lot in a tight contest. With a lot of marginal constituencies and a close election it can make a big difference. Not everyone has id to hand. Not everyone has time to go home and get it. Not everyone is organised. Not everyone will vote if you start making it inconvenient. You can say "well that is their fault for being disorganised or not motivated enough", but the point is that everyone has the right to vote, not just organised and motivated people.
Why should I have to produce anything more than a poll card? (I agree, it would be a good idea to have to take that and if you vote in person you will get one.)
So, do people in all the other ~199 countries have to produce ID when voting on top of a polling card? AFAIK loads of 'common law' countries have no ID cards, nor do Iceland, Norway & Denmark.
Iceland and Norway both require ID, even though they don't have ID cards. The same is true for Denmark, although it isn't listed here.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
When I have had obstructive staff in the past, I have found asking them a simple question unlocks the problem most of the time.
"Why are you doing this?"
Nine times out of 10 they are unable to give a valid reason, and there's the route out.
Whatever the circumstances, not treating your staff with consideration and respect is unacceptable, in whatever industry you work in.
Defending such actions is just despicable.
I don't think its being "ignored" - I think its being placed in "context" namely:
- Senior staff (who should expect robust feedback) were not supportive - Patel was not given feedback that her robust feedback was perceived as bullying - When Patel was given feedback that her behaviour was seen as bullying, she changed her behaviour.
Can any of the above be said of, oh, I dunno, Bercow?
People make mistakes. The issue is whether they learn from them.
A question I would have is if she has genuinely seen the error of her ways, why is the apology today when the report comes out, rather than many months ago when she was initially told her actions were bullying?
The context of a previous employee getting paid £25k due to Patel bullying them in 2015 also makes this idea she was unaware of her actions quite unlikely.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
She was found to have people who felt like they were bullied.
She was also found not to do it once made aware.
Job done. Or should everyone who ever has someone who "feels" they were bullied be sacked for gross misconduct immediately with no feedback, no warnings and no opportunities to address concerns?
Should the Home Office staff who weren't performing to their required standards also be sacked Gross Misconduct without warning too?
Entirely reasonable except to partisan hacks like @Gallowgate looking to score points.
Bullying is ok if you didn’t foresee the impact of your bullying?
Come on now. That is nonsense.
If there's no complaints?
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
But you are seeking to belittle those who were identified as suffering through the investigation. That they didn't complain is irrelevant as in investigating a complaint the wider situation emerges.
Yes, if no one complained there would be a problem, but that's not what happened so theres no call to belittle and demean them.
No I'm not, I've no problem or belittlement for those who followed procedure.
My "snowflakes" remark was explicitly for those "who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied".
You're belittling people who've suffered if they dont follow procedure, I think that's disgraceful. To take a more serious analogy, itd be like belittling someone for not reporting a crime. Yes they should have done, but it doesn't invalidate that they've suffered.
Snowflake implies their concerns were meritless, which by all accounts they were not (though the response to the findings is disputed). Itd be better if they had spoken, but the failure to do so doesn't mean, now its known, that it means nothing.
By your logic if you investigate one thing and discover another example of the same thing it should be ignored because it wasnt originally provided to you. What sense does that make?
Entirely reasonable except to partisan hacks like @Gallowgate looking to score points.
Bullying is ok if you didn’t foresee the impact of your bullying?
Come on now. That is nonsense.
If there's no complaints?
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
But you are seeking to belittle those who were identified as suffering through the investigation. That they didn't complain is irrelevant as in investigating a complaint the wider situation emerges.
Yes, if no one complained there would be a problem, but that's not what happened so theres no call to belittle and demean them.
No I'm not, I've no problem or belittlement for those who followed procedure.
My "snowflakes" remark was explicitly for those "who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied".
It's not as simple as that, lots of people are afraid to take that route because they don't want to be seen as troublemakers or they don't want to die on someone else's hill.
What this looks like to me is an unpopular senior manager not getting his way suddenly and being sidelined by the minister and then the minister having no way of getting rid of him because there's no pay off budget and she doesn't have the opportunity to manage him out as I would with performance targets and weekly reviews.
I don't think it's right that she bullied him, but at the same time he strikes me as one of those unflushable turds that just can't take the hint they aren't wanted and their competency is well below what is required so I have some sympathy for her predicament.
To all those people who say she was 100% wrong and should be sacked I'd pose this scenario:
She's new management and has a new vision, she's got the majority of people on board. He's a significant hold out and she can't "make it work". She can't pay him off and doesn't have recourse to manage him out given that he's the most senior manager. How does she the get rid of the guy? What steps should she take to ensure he is no longer her employee, especially given that she'd already shopped him around other departments and no one wanted him because they knew he was rubbish.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Might have time to work on a header or two...
Hopefully she (and possibly you) will get off lightly with it. Best of luck!
In other ONS news, the number of infections in previous weeks has decreased slightly. This means the apparent IFR has gone up again (as deaths have not decreased), to about 1%.
I will note that this is for infections in the community ONLY. As we know about one in six infections occur in hospitals, that implies a true IFR of around 0.8%.
That reads like a company covering their backside over an over-zealous and abrasive manager, who having been told to rein it in a bit did so, so we’ll let this letter sit in her HR file for a couple of years in case something else comes up in the future. It doesn’t sound like gross misconduct or misleading someone, for which she could expect to be shown the door.
Where is the Bercow report? That was much more concerning.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Yes because Bercows bullying continued after complaints were raised.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
That's not bullying. Setting unreasonable "stretch" targets that are impossible to hit and using this duly manufactured "poor" performance to fire staff, that would be "bullying" them out.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
She was found to have people who felt like they were bullied.
She was also found not to do it once made aware.
Job done. Or should everyone who ever has someone who "feels" they were bullied be sacked for gross misconduct immediately with no feedback, no warnings and no opportunities to address concerns?
Should the Home Office staff who weren't performing to their required standards also be sacked Gross Misconduct without warning too?
Was she not aware of the 2015 DWP allegations? Or the 2016/2017 International Development allegations?
If she now bullies someone in 2021 but is unaware until they complain is that hunky dory too?
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Presumably the underlying reason for all this is Brexit. Patel has asked for unicorns and the civil service has failed to deliver unicorns. Hence her annoyance and frustration.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
When I have had obstructive staff in the past, I have found asking them a simple question unlocks the problem most of the time.
"Why are you doing this?"
Nine times out of 10 they are unable to give a valid reason, and there's the route out.
Yes, and that's when managing people out of the job starts or I'd get a pay off package approved. However, put it in the context of not being able to do either and the answer being in that 9/10 unable to answer column.
That reads like a company covering their backside over an over-zealous and abrasive manager, who having been told to rein it in a bit did so, so we’ll let this letter sit in her HR file for a couple of years in case something else comes up in the future. It doesn’t sound like gross misconduct or misleading someone, for which she could expect to be shown the door.
Where is the Bercow report? That was much more concerning.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Yes because Bercows bullying continued after complaints were raised.
Patel's didn't.
Spot the difference?
This is palpable nonsense, its a pattern of behaviour ongoing for 5 years since the govt started paying off her victims.
In other ONS news, the number of infections in previous weeks has decreased slightly. This means the apparent IFR has gone up again (as deaths have not decreased), to about 1%.
I will note that this is for infections in the community ONLY. As we know about one in six infections occur in hospitals, that implies a true IFR of around 0.8%.
It also doesn't test university accomodation like halls so it's probably still a bit lower than that.
His membership of the Monday Club is forgiven for his leadership of the Bollocks To Brexit Club; and what's a bit of bullying compared to supporting Apartheid?
Entirely reasonable except to partisan hacks like @Gallowgate looking to score points.
Bullying is ok if you didn’t foresee the impact of your bullying?
Come on now. That is nonsense.
If there's no complaints?
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
But you are seeking to belittle those who were identified as suffering through the investigation. That they didn't complain is irrelevant as in investigating a complaint the wider situation emerges.
Yes, if no one complained there would be a problem, but that's not what happened so theres no call to belittle and demean them.
No I'm not, I've no problem or belittlement for those who followed procedure.
My "snowflakes" remark was explicitly for those "who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied".
You're belittling people who've suffered if they dont follow procedure, I think that's disgraceful. To take a more serious analogy, itd be like belittling someone for not reporting a crime. Yes they should have done, but it doesn't invalidate that they've suffered.
Snowflake implies their concerns were meritless, which by all accounts they were not (though the response to the findings is disputed). Itd be better if they had spoken, but the failure to do so doesn't mean, now its known, that it means nothing.
By your logic if you investigate one thing and discover another example of the same thing it should be ignored because it wasnt originally provided to you. What sense does that make?
Fair enough I take back the snowflakes remark. But the principle still stands that if people don't complain then their concerns aren't going to be addressed . . . and if someone does complain and it does get addressed then job done.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
This is actually the biggest risk to our democracy that I see. The public. If for whatever reason they cease to demand a modicum of honesty, integrity and competence as the minimum price of their vote, regardless of their politics, then we're in trouble. I fear that we are getting uncomfortably close to that point.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
This is actually the biggest risk to our democracy that I see. The public. If for whatever reason they cease to demand honesty, integrity and competence as the minimum price of their vote, regardless of their politics, then we're in trouble. I fear that we are getting uncomfortably close to that point.
You should be grateful.
If honesty, integrity and competence were the minimum price then the Labour Party might as well disband.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
She was found to have people who felt like they were bullied.
She was also found not to do it once made aware.
Job done. Or should everyone who ever has someone who "feels" they were bullied be sacked for gross misconduct immediately with no feedback, no warnings and no opportunities to address concerns?
Should the Home Office staff who weren't performing to their required standards also be sacked Gross Misconduct without warning too?
On the whole punishing the victims of bullying (confirmed by enquiry) is not a wise thing for an organisation to do. Perhaps might explain why victims are reluctant to come forward🙄
I do have some experience of this in a management, having conducted both investigations into harassment and bullying, as well as performance managed people who claimed bullying as a defence.
Quite apart from being a toxic and dysfunctional workplace, bullying management tends to be quite ineffective. Expensive too because of financial compensation for unfair dismissal and reputational damage.
I think bullying is quite common in politics, indeed often part of party culture.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
This is actually the biggest risk to our democracy that I see. The public. If for whatever reason they cease to demand honesty, integrity and competence as the minimum price of their vote, regardless of their politics, then we're in trouble. I fear that we are getting uncomfortably close to that point.
You should be grateful.
If honesty, integrity and competence were the minimum price then the Labour Party might as well disband.
Which of those three qualities is the current government demonstrating?
I have to say that I sort of agree with Steve Baker today, though I suspect for very different reasons. The national lockdown is not, yet, the main signal in the figures.
Weekly cases (by report) are down 3900 on last week, but all of that signal and more comes from prior restriction areas - the reduction in Greater Manchester alone is over 2700, and there are multiple places giving that signal (1000 from S Yorks, 500 each from WYorks & Notts, Wales, Scotland, NI etc.). Meanwhile places like Kent have added over 2000 cases to the count (ca. 60% growth week on week) and though the growth rates in other parts of the South are generally less extreme, most places are growing as you head into the former L1 areas.
It is when those L1 places start leveling off and reducing that we can say national lockdown has kicked in.
I have a suggestion for @Malmesbury - it is possible to do some kind of derived table for, say, a 21 day trajectory - a hash of R rate and infection rate for each area?
In other ONS news, the number of infections in previous weeks has decreased slightly. This means the apparent IFR has gone up again (as deaths have not decreased), to about 1%.
I will note that this is for infections in the community ONLY. As we know about one in six infections occur in hospitals, that implies a true IFR of around 0.8%.
Amending the projection to take into account the latest ONS infections data and using the updated effective IFR (and using the existing decrease in the most recent days, which equates to a hair over R=0.9) this projects:
As before: yellow bars are projected deaths from the effective IFR; blue bars are projected deaths from the average death rate of hospitalised people in England, extrapolated over the country; and red bars are actual UK deaths to date (I don't go any more up to date than today minus one week; even so, the last three days on the chart usually go up noticeably over time)
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Whatever the circumstances, not treating your staff with consideration and respect is unacceptable, in whatever industry you work in.
Defending such actions is just despicable.
And the higher your position the more despicable the action. To cut a long story short has she been fired yet? If not Johnson really is now a hostage to fortune. Even more so than he was with Cummings
Awaiting the results of a brain ct scan third scan this week on different parts of the body. I was falling down twice a day for about four days, I think I’m just weak but they want to make sure.
Many thanks to Topping and OnlyLivingBoy on the last thread for unravelling the DNA story. I get it now - maybe I missed a "5 years earlier" caption in episode 2, or as OLB suggests the Danes are just better than me (but not better than you two) at working these things out!
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
This is actually the biggest risk to our democracy that I see. The public. If for whatever reason they cease to demand honesty, integrity and competence as the minimum price of their vote, regardless of their politics, then we're in trouble. I fear that we are getting uncomfortably close to that point.
You should be grateful.
If honesty, integrity and competence were the minimum price then the Labour Party might as well disband.
Which of those three qualities is the current government demonstrating?
Far more competence than we'd get from Labour. Not that you'd agree I'm sure.
Honesty - I think we get political spin from all parties and proper honesty hasn't existed in politics for decades. I won't pretend that the Tories are completely honest but neither are anyone else.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
There doesn't seem to be much difference in general Election turnout afaics. Most seem to be around 70-80%.
except the UK which has this century been been 59%-69%.
Compared to our biggest neighbours:
France 75-84 (presidential) Germany 71-79 Italy 73-84
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
She was found to have people who felt like they were bullied.
She was also found not to do it once made aware.
Job done. Or should everyone who ever has someone who "feels" they were bullied be sacked for gross misconduct immediately with no feedback, no warnings and no opportunities to address concerns?
Should the Home Office staff who weren't performing to their required standards also be sacked Gross Misconduct without warning too?
On the whole punishing the victims of bullying (confirmed by enquiry) is not a wise thing for an organisation to do. Perhaps might explain why victims are reluctant to come forward🙄
I do have some experience of this in a management, having conducted both investigations into harassment and bullying, as well as performance managed people who claimed bullying as a defence.
Quite apart from being a toxic and dysfunctional workplace, bullying management tends to be quite ineffective. Expensive too because of financial compensation for unfair dismissal and reputational damage.
I think bullying is quite common in politics, indeed often part of party culture.
I think you're probably right, which is why it is all the more important to have proper channels for raising concerns - and disciplinary action for those who don't change behaviour after concerns are raised with them.
In this instance a concern was raised and the concern was addressed satisfactorily and there is no alleged ongoing bullying so job done move on, unless it is a witch-hunt excuse to try and take down a political opponent rather than legitimate concerns about bullying.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
In Spain you cannot vote without your ID - even in local elections!
Aren't you obliged to always carry ID with you in Spain?
Many thanks to Topping and OnlyLivingBoy on the last thread for unravelling the DNA story. I get it now - maybe I missed a "5 years earlier" caption in episode 2, or as OLB suggests the Danes are just better than me (but not better than you two) at working these things out!
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
It was a very good drama imo. Clever plot twist. Well acted. An emotional punch. Definitely a cut above.
Having been in a job where many of the most talented people left (including me) because the CEO would bully anyone whose engineering opinion he disagreed with this all looks very familiar. Disastrous drops in performance across the business, resignations, bullying claims through ACAS, cronies saying “oh they’re not bullying just managing performance” and the board refusing to act because he was charming to those who didn’t work for him. Just repellant that anyone defends these people.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Awaiting the results of a brain ct scan third scan this week on different parts of the body. I was falling down twice a day for about four days, I think I’m just weak but they want to make sure.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If the person in the third highest position in government doesn't know not to bully subordinates then they should be nowhere near the Home Office the most sensitive departmnt in government.
Having said that having been sacked for dishonesty twice by the previous PM only a fool would have appointed her in the first place
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
Awaiting the results of a brain ct scan third scan this week on different parts of the body. I was falling down twice a day for about four days, I think I’m just weak but they want to make sure.
Hope you get the results you are hoping for.
I’d just like to be home knowing what I need to know to plan the future for those around me
Many thanks to Topping and OnlyLivingBoy on the last thread for unravelling the DNA story. I get it now - maybe I missed a "5 years earlier" caption in episode 2, or as OLB suggests the Danes are just better than me (but not better than you two) at working these things out!
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
It was a very good drama imo. Clever plot twist. Well acted. An emotional punch. Definitely a cut above.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Awaiting the results of a brain ct scan third scan this week on different parts of the body. I was falling down twice a day for about four days, I think I’m just weak but they want to make sure.
Hope you get the results you are hoping for.
I’d just like to be home knowing what I need to know to plan the future for those around me
Fingers crossed for you @nichomar I hope you are ok
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
There doesn't seem to be much difference in general Election turnout afaics. Most seem to be around 70-80%.
except the UK which has this century been been 59%-69%.
Compared to our biggest neighbours:
France 75-84 (presidential) Germany 71-79 Italy 73-84
FPTP. So many people are voting in safe seats with next to zero chance of change and very little incentive to vote.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
This is actually the biggest risk to our democracy that I see. The public. If for whatever reason they cease to demand honesty, integrity and competence as the minimum price of their vote, regardless of their politics, then we're in trouble. I fear that we are getting uncomfortably close to that point.
You should be grateful.
If honesty, integrity and competence were the minimum price then the Labour Party might as well disband.
You've taken it the wrong way. Yes, I have Johnson and Trump in mind, for obvious reasons, but it's a general concern. A discerning and informed electorate is vital to a functioning democracy.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
In Spain you cannot vote without your ID - even in local elections!
Aren't you obliged to always carry ID with you in Spain?
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
In Spain you cannot vote without your ID - even in local elections!
Aren't you obliged to always carry ID with you in Spain?
Yes but you always have your health card and driving license. Most immigrants will carry passport because health card depends on it spanish citizens have a DNI card the carry
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
Make sure the vast majority of the press is on your side, no matter what.
Which democracy in the world would be immune from attack if the demos consistently voted for its own abolition by giving a majority to tyrants? I suspect we are better placed than many in that unlikely scenario. The Crown, the Armed Forces and the Courts would still be in play if nothing else.
That depends how consistently, but for instance Japan has a strong written constitution with an independently elected, non-partisan supreme court with long terms. It would be way harder to bring off an autogolpe than the UK where the only real check on a PM with a parliamentary majority for even a single term is the Queen, who as we saw with the prorogation will merrily sign off on whatever the PM puts in front of her.
The US has far stronger safeguards against this than the UK. But the Democrats need to wise up and it starts with redistricting VA, NY and CA as an aggresive gerrymander to maximise house seats. Control of the House is, in extremis, the single biggest check on a presidential coup. https://leantossup.ca/53-0-or-bust-starts-now/
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
Awaiting the results of a brain ct scan third scan this week on different parts of the body. I was falling down twice a day for about four days, I think I’m just weak but they want to make sure.
Many thanks to Topping and OnlyLivingBoy on the last thread for unravelling the DNA story. I get it now - maybe I missed a "5 years earlier" caption in episode 2, or as OLB suggests the Danes are just better than me (but not better than you two) at working these things out!
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
It was a very good drama imo. Clever plot twist. Well acted. An emotional punch. Definitely a cut above.
I was a mess at the end.
You think? I really liked the ending. The plot twist on the boat was clever and I could just about believe it. And then the noble choice he made. That got me a bit.
EDIT -
Oops sorry! Read your comment as IT was a mess at the end.
Awaiting the results of a brain ct scan third scan this week on different parts of the body. I was falling down twice a day for about four days, I think I’m just weak but they want to make sure.
Sir Alex Allen resigned because Johnson hasn't sacked Patel. This is extremely serious. Not only for Patel but for Johnson. Gus O'Donnel is quite clear she is guilty of bullying JUNIOR staff and should resign. What a piece of work Johnson is. Anyone who is standing with him believes it is OK bullying JUNIOR staff
That reads like a company covering their backside over an over-zealous and abrasive manager, who having been told to rein it in a bit did so, so we’ll let this letter sit in her HR file for a couple of years in case something else comes up in the future. It doesn’t sound like gross misconduct or misleading someone, for which she could expect to be shown the door.
Where is the Bercow report? That was much more concerning.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Not at all. The Bercow allegations were from junior members of staff, and were accompanied by a huge amount of support for the Speaker by partisan Remainers who in every other circumstance would have been on the side of the accusers.
Patel simply fell out with a bunch of obstructive senior CS types who didn’t want to be part of her program for the department. As others have said, in corporate world you manage these people out - I’ve personally been on both sides of that managing out, it’s just how the world works.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
I see Robert Peston has managed to hold the simultaneously the thoughts in his head that his job is to write down what people tell him verbatim and that it is unfair to say that he just repeats verbatim what people tell him.
Did she introduce more tasers, that are painful? Or tasers that are more painful? Either way I'm not sure that would be unpopular with the general public.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
She didn't break the Ministerial Code, that was the judgement of the Prime Minister and I agree with him. There were no complaints at the time and after getting complaints she has addressed it and made amends.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
She didn't break the Ministerial Code, that was the judgement of the Prime Minister and I agree with him. There were no complaints at the time and after getting complaints she has addressed it and made amends.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Any why did this standard not exist for Bercow?
We’re not talking about “hurting someone’s feelings”.
We’re talking about bullying, which the independent report said Priti’s behaviour amounted to.
Therefore she broke the Ministerial Code. Just because Boris Johnson is as much as a hypocrite as you that doesn’t change anything.
Have we seen the independent report into Bercow’s behaviour?
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
Then I look forward to the next cabinet minister who gets demoted to the back benches in a cabinet reshuffle to sue the prime-minister for unlawful dismissal.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
She didn't break the Ministerial Code, that was the judgement of the Prime Minister and I agree with him. There were no complaints at the time and after getting complaints she has addressed it and made amends.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Any why did this standard not exist for Bercow?
We’re not talking about “hurting someone’s feelings”.
We’re talking about bullying, which the independent report said Priti’s behaviour amounted to.
Therefore she broke the Ministerial Code. Just because Boris Johnson is as much as a hypocrite as you that doesn’t change anything.
Have we seen the independent report into Bercow’s behaviour?
With zero complaints?
B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.
Name a single person in politics sacked for this with zero complaints previously? What happened with Bercow who had complaints about this exact same issue for years. Hypocrite!
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
She didn't break the Ministerial Code, that was the judgement of the Prime Minister and I agree with him. There were no complaints at the time and after getting complaints she has addressed it and made amends.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Any why did this standard not exist for Bercow?
We’re not talking about “hurting someone’s feelings”.
We’re talking about bullying, which the independent report said Priti’s behaviour amounted to.
Therefore she broke the Ministerial Code. Just because Boris Johnson is as much as a hypocrite as you that doesn’t change anything.
Have we seen the independent report into Bercow’s behaviour?
With zero complaints?
B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.
Name a single person in politics sacked for this with zero complaints previously? What happened with Bercow who had complaints about this exact same issue for years. Hypocrite!
Lol.
Which part of “[m]y advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect” do you not understand?
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
Is that a decision, or just advice? I thought the PM decided.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Comments
But we saw the same with Jenrick. And with Cummings. And with JRM (who, if he had a gram of honour, would have gone after the prorogation fiasco).
But Johnson's view has always been that, unless an external force can apply the rules to him, the rules don't exist. And since the next GE is four years away, the plebs can suck it up in the meantime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws
"Why are you doing this?"
Nine times out of 10 they are unable to give a valid reason, and there's the route out.
The context of a previous employee getting paid £25k due to Patel bullying them in 2015 also makes this idea she was unaware of her actions quite unlikely.
She was also found not to do it once made aware.
Job done. Or should everyone who ever has someone who "feels" they were bullied be sacked for gross misconduct immediately with no feedback, no warnings and no opportunities to address concerns?
Should the Home Office staff who weren't performing to their required standards also be sacked Gross Misconduct without warning too?
Snowflake implies their concerns were meritless, which by all accounts they were not (though the response to the findings is disputed). Itd be better if they had spoken, but the failure to do so doesn't mean, now its known, that it means nothing.
By your logic if you investigate one thing and discover another example of the same thing it should be ignored because it wasnt originally provided to you. What sense does that make?
What this looks like to me is an unpopular senior manager not getting his way suddenly and being sidelined by the minister and then the minister having no way of getting rid of him because there's no pay off budget and she doesn't have the opportunity to manage him out as I would with performance targets and weekly reviews.
I don't think it's right that she bullied him, but at the same time he strikes me as one of those unflushable turds that just can't take the hint they aren't wanted and their competency is well below what is required so I have some sympathy for her predicament.
To all those people who say she was 100% wrong and should be sacked I'd pose this scenario:
She's new management and has a new vision, she's got the majority of people on board. He's a significant hold out and she can't "make it work". She can't pay him off and doesn't have recourse to manage him out given that he's the most senior manager. How does she the get rid of the guy? What steps should she take to ensure he is no longer her employee, especially given that she'd already shopped him around other departments and no one wanted him because they knew he was rubbish.
This means the apparent IFR has gone up again (as deaths have not decreased), to about 1%.
I will note that this is for infections in the community ONLY. As we know about one in six infections occur in hospitals, that implies a true IFR of around 0.8%.
Patel's didn't.
Spot the difference?
If she now bullies someone in 2021 but is unaware until they complain is that hunky dory too?
His membership of the Monday Club is forgiven for his leadership of the Bollocks To Brexit Club; and what's a bit of bullying compared to supporting Apartheid?
If honesty, integrity and competence were the minimum price then the Labour Party might as well disband.
I do have some experience of this in a management, having conducted both investigations into harassment and bullying, as well as performance managed people who claimed bullying as a defence.
Quite apart from being a toxic and dysfunctional workplace, bullying management tends to be quite ineffective. Expensive too because of financial compensation for unfair dismissal and reputational damage.
I think bullying is quite common in politics, indeed often part of party culture.
I have to say that I sort of agree with Steve Baker today, though I suspect for very different reasons. The national lockdown is not, yet, the main signal in the figures.
Weekly cases (by report) are down 3900 on last week, but all of that signal and more comes from prior restriction areas - the reduction in Greater Manchester alone is over 2700, and there are multiple places giving that signal (1000 from S Yorks, 500 each from WYorks & Notts, Wales, Scotland, NI etc.). Meanwhile places like Kent have added over 2000 cases to the count (ca. 60% growth week on week) and though the growth rates in other parts of the South are generally less extreme, most places are growing as you head into the former L1 areas.
It is when those L1 places start leveling off and reducing that we can say national lockdown has kicked in.
I have a suggestion for @Malmesbury - it is possible to do some kind of derived table for, say, a 21 day trajectory - a hash of R rate and infection rate for each area?
As before: yellow bars are projected deaths from the effective IFR; blue bars are projected deaths from the average death rate of hospitalised people in England, extrapolated over the country; and red bars are actual UK deaths to date (I don't go any more up to date than today minus one week; even so, the last three days on the chart usually go up noticeably over time)
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
Honesty - I think we get political spin from all parties and proper honesty hasn't existed in politics for decades. I won't pretend that the Tories are completely honest but neither are anyone else.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
Compared to our biggest neighbours:
France 75-84 (presidential)
Germany 71-79
Italy 73-84
In this instance a concern was raised and the concern was addressed satisfactorily and there is no alleged ongoing bullying so job done move on, unless it is a witch-hunt excuse to try and take down a political opponent rather than legitimate concerns about bullying.
Having been in a job where many of the most talented people left (including me) because the CEO would bully anyone whose engineering opinion he disagreed with this all looks very familiar. Disastrous drops in performance across the business, resignations, bullying claims through ACAS, cronies saying “oh they’re not bullying just managing performance” and the board refusing to act because he was charming to those who didn’t work for him. Just repellant that anyone defends these people.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Your position is laughable Philip.
Having said that having been sacked for dishonesty twice by the previous PM only a fool would have appointed her in the first place
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
https://leantossup.ca/53-0-or-bust-starts-now/
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
EDIT -
Oops sorry! Read your comment as IT was a mess at the end.
Patel simply fell out with a bunch of obstructive senior CS types who didn’t want to be part of her program for the department. As others have said, in corporate world you manage these people out - I’ve personally been on both sides of that managing out, it’s just how the world works.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Any why did this standard not exist for Bercow?
Nuff said.
We’re talking about bullying, which the independent report said Priti’s behaviour amounted to.
Therefore she broke the Ministerial Code. Just because Boris Johnson is as much as a hypocrite as you that doesn’t change anything.
Have we seen the independent report into Bercow’s behaviour?
B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.
Name a single person in politics sacked for this with zero complaints previously? What happened with Bercow who had complaints about this exact same issue for years. Hypocrite!
Which part of “[m]y advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect” do you not understand?
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?