politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Super Tuesday: With just over four hours to go before the coun
Comments
-
Newsnight on Bloomberg, it's like the Mary Celeste in his campaign offices...0
-
Thank God for @Pulpstarrottenborough said:
I'm liking your posts tonight!Pulpstar said:Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
0 -
I feel my piece has aged well. The moderates have coalesced more quickly then I expected tooanother_richard said:
Smithson and Herdson ?Pulpstar said:Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
0 -
YBarddCwsc said:
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors0 -
Enough analogies already! Can't we go back to themed puns?IanB2 said:
Exactly. Rcs designed the car to be fast and luxurious but didn’t consider safety or road handling. When he took it out on the road it ran into unexpected conditions and the rest is history.Beibheirli_C said:
It hit black ice or something....IanB2 said:
It’s like he designed a great car and then it spun off the road.Beibheirli_C said:
Why?rcs1000 said:
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.TimT said:eristdoof said:
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.Beibheirli_C said:
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.IanB2 said:
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?HYUFD said:
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.rcs1000 said:@HYUFD
May I use an analogy?
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
0 -
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.Casino_Royale said:eadric said:
Good luck,Casino_Royale said:
Absolute bollocks.eadric said:
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.Casino_Royale said:
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"eadric said:
Mate, there is no other subject.Casino_Royale said:
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.eadric said:
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.Casino_Royale said:At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
https://twitter.com/aawsat_eng/status/1234955458194092032?s=20
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
0 -
If what you said is true then how do you explain Jeremy Corbyn's 150 seat majority?Andy_JS said:
Just because Bernie's supporters make the most noise doesn't mean they have the most support. A lesson that seemingly has to be learnt again and again.Pulpstar said:Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
3 -
I still think the Dems should have gone Buttigieg.
But now it is all Biden vs Sanders.0 -
I'm a bit surprised that Warren is not in the lead in her home state of Massachusetts?TheScreamingEagles said:
If she cant win there is she out? as in even if she chooses to carry on will she just be ignored?0 -
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.0 -
And Tyson....another_richard said:
Smithson and Herdson ?Pulpstar said:Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
0 -
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
0 -
We know Eadric was late to the party, because Corona was a story thru much of January, before Eadric existed as an account.Mysticrose said:
Actually, my friend, as Foxy demonstrated the other day with a link on this site, I was referring to the trouble we were in about coronavirus before Eadric. And I warned a good friend of mine to get out of the stock market 2 months ago for the same reason. I then waivered with the slow pick up in China, but now know for sure that Sean T was correct about this.Casino_Royale said:
It's because of the easily influenced like you that people like SeanT are bundled off to the rear in wartime.Mysticrose said:Right I'm going to watch an episode of Friends.
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
It shows you in poor light that you don't just admit it.
On the subject of herding, it's a little like suggesting that because I believe the science of climate change is by now irrefutable that this, in some way, makes me less of a leader and more of a sheep. That doesn't really say a lot for your intellectual faculties.1 -
Then, please let's hear from the junior advisors themselves.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
Actually, this happened to me. Someone complained on my behalf that someone else was bullying me. I can speak for myself, I don't need someone complaining vicariously on my behalf. I suspect their motives.
Also, you are wrong. Sir Philip is claiming he personally was bullied. Read the first sentence of the Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/03/top-civil-servant-begins-legal-case-against-priti-patel-and-home-office
"Sir Philip Rutnam, the senior civil servant who resigned on Saturday claiming he was bullied and forced from office, has begun legal action against the government over his treatment by Priti Patel, his union has told the Guardian."
0 -
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.1 -
When can a government not be brave in the immediate aftermath of winning a very sizable victory? That will be both good and bad, but on balance I'd think it better that a government flush wih victory should not spend its time being petrified of some bad headlines and a dip in polling at such a time by being brave.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.0 -
CNN now saying we should thoroughly cook eggs to avoid the plague.
Have I missed something?0 -
FFS!!eristdoof said:
On 1. Sigmoid aka logistic growth ist the usual pattern for disease counts, which in the "take off" stage is indistinguishable from exponential growth, which is where we are now. Wuhan could well be in the linear stage in the middle, before the tailing off.Ratters said:Looking at this outbreak from a maths background, two concepts spring to mind: 1) exponential growth, which had been well discussed; and 2) catastrophe theory, which has been less so.
Catastrophe theory is essentially the study of what happens in non-linear systems where a small change causes a sudden very large change (think a landslide), where it is often highly unpredictable in advance what the breaking point will be.
The relevance here is the impact on healthcare systems and society. This 'may' only be 10x worse than normal flu in isolation, but that places no limit on what the impact will be in certain countries when they reach breaking point. Some countries (hopefully the UK from our initial response) may only see a bad flu season plus slowing economic growth, but others (see Iran...) won't be so lucky.
On 2. Your right. And for those who don't know, a catastrophe in this sense does not have to be a disaster, but where an overhanging cliff edge in the mathematical functon is reached and there is suddenly a drop to another smooth part of the function. If a mathematical catastrophe point is reached in the spread of this virus, it would be a human catastrophe as well.
This type of problem is modelled in the applied maths and physics fields where the inputs can be accurately controlled and the occurrence of a catastrophic event easily measured. Such models are rarely fitted in data analysis, although a higly non-linear model like a neural network might find such behaviour. The problem is you need shed loads of data to have a chance of modelling it, and we have at the moment very limited data.
TL;DR catastrophe theory models might be relevant, but aren't going to help us at this stage, due to lack of information.
It's easy, and it's easy to understand without you two arsing about with terms you clearly only vaguely understand;
Exponential = cockroaches breeding, but more scary.
Chaotic processes = who knows what, but when there's a reinforcement process then they can spin out of control.
(Chaos/Catastophe/non-linear are much the same)
The spread of a virus can be at worst exponential. That's very bad though - a doubling with every handshake or other contact frequency.
The death rate has much more to do with non-linear behavior. Three processes fighting it out - infection. immunity, and cure. (Who knows)
0 -
Yes, in the initial period now and next year I would agree with that. I was thinking more long term in terms of the effect of a large number of deaths of the retired.rcs1000 said:
I disagree.LostPassword said:
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.Chameleon said:From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.1 -
It's not being learned over and over again, it doesn't seem to get learned at all.Andy_JS said:
Just because Bernie's supporters make the most noise doesn't mean they have the most support. A lesson that seemingly has to be learnt again and again.Pulpstar said:Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
0 -
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.0 -
At least some of the thread was tongue in cheek.IanB2 said:
I tried to move the discussion on to an analogy about your analogy. Is this better?rcs1000 said:
I posted an analogy about a fire in a house, and before long, people had extended the analogy all the way back to Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, and the invention of alternating current.Beibheirli_C said:
Why?rcs1000 said:
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.TimT said:eristdoof said:
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.Beibheirli_C said:
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.IanB2 said:
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?HYUFD said:
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.rcs1000 said:@HYUFD
May I use an analogy?
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless? 1 -
(1) I'm not youngeadric said:
Dude, you are young, your kids are very young, you should (personally) be fine, and they should be fine. Of course you may have relatives and friends who are greatly at risk.Casino_Royale said:
I have done it soberly, rationally and calculatedly. Just like I do with my betting. And I bet I thought about it weeks before you.Mysticrose said:
Normalcy bias.eadric said:
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.Casino_Royale said:
If you made the slightest link between the burno!!"eadric said:
Mate, there is no other subject.Casino_Royale said:
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.eadric said:
I am sympathetiCasino_Royale said:At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
https://twitter.com/aawsat_eng/status/1234955458194092032?s=20
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
Sad but he will come round.
What I haven't done is been a total fucking bore about it on here night and day because I'm an absolute drama queen who thinks there's no difference between keeping calm and being ignorant, and so the only sign of being informed is to lose your shit about it every 42 minutes.
But, you know this. You're just a follower who struggles with independent thought and who's very easily influenced by others.
And so, we feel a bit sorry for you - and we ignore you.
We all need to stop arguing and accept that this is a near-certain disaster looming, and we all need to readjust.
(2) Don't mention or invoke my children in this again please
(3) If a flu pandemic was a 3 out of 10 it doesn't then follow that I think this is a 0 out of 10 just because you think it's a 10 out of 10 and I'm arguing it's just a 5 or 6 out of 10.
(4) Your last point is a strawman: I have made adjustments and am fully prepared for adjustments.
I will continue to call out your incessant and hyperbolic posts until you rein it in.
Your choice.3 -
Sounds like scrambled thinking to me.rottenborough said:CNN now saying we should thoroughly cook eggs to avoid the plague.
Have I missed something?0 -
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.0 -
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.0 -
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.Mysticrose said:
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.Casino_Royale said:eadric said:
Good luck,Casino_Royale said:
Absolute bollocks.eadric said:
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.Casino_Royale said:
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"eadric said:
Mate, there is no other subject.Casino_Royale said:
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.eadric said:
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.Casino_Royale said:At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
https://twitter.com/aawsat_eng/status/1234955458194092032?s=20
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.4 -
I know what I would choose if I had control of over which 20% died. Ultimately it comes down to the economic cost of a human life, and I am enormously grateful that I will almost certainly never have to make that choice.LostPassword said:
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.Chameleon said:From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.0 -
They are going to play Fleetwood Mac songs??rottenborough said:1 -
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.0 -
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.kle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.0 -
Historians argue that in the long run the Black Death delivered economic benefits, by kick starting the demise of feudalismLostPassword said:
Yes, in the initial period now and next year I would agree with that. I was thinking more long term in terms of the effect of a large number of deaths of the retired.rcs1000 said:
I disagree.LostPassword said:
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.Chameleon said:From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.1 -
There are interesting differences between USA and Europe over how eggs are packed and stored.rottenborough said:CNN now saying we should thoroughly cook eggs to avoid the plague.
Have I missed something?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-american-eggs-would-be-illegal-in-a-british-supermarket-and-vice-versa/0 -
What is he "right" about that I'm "wrong" about?Mysticrose said:
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.Casino_Royale said:eadric said:
Good luck,Casino_Royale said:
Absolute bollocks.eadric said:
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.Casino_Royale said:
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"eadric said:
Mate, there is no other subject.Casino_Royale said:
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.eadric said:
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.Casino_Royale said:At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
https://twitter.com/aawsat_eng/status/1234955458194092032?s=20
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
Actually, don't bother answering that. Because you can't without creating a strawman. And I'm simply bored of talking about this with you.
Go and enjoy Friends.0 -
To be fair, he put the word alleged before "bullying". If he put it in front of "victims" as well, then the sentence would have scanned poorly.Philip_Thompson said:
"victims".Gallowgate said:
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...TGOHF666 said:
She’s going nowhere.Gallowgate said:Priti Patel
Drip... drip... drip...
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Wow. Ok.
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄1 -
Benpointer said:
They are going to play Fleetwood Mac songs??rottenborough said:
No, but the whole concert series will have to be cancelled before they have even started.0 -
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.Cyclefree said:
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.1 -
-
That’s the trouble with over easy solutions.Benpointer said:
Sounds like scrambled thinking to me.rottenborough said:CNN now saying we should thoroughly cook eggs to avoid the plague.
Have I missed something?0 -
Really interesting (and I have to say impressive) piece on how China has apparently turned the corner on the virus:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.0 -
There is NO FORMAL COMPLAINT MECHANISM. Which is why there have been zero formal complaints.rcs1000 said:
To be fair, he put the word alleged before "bullying". If he put it in front of "victims" as well, then the sentence would have scanned poorly.Philip_Thompson said:
"victims".Gallowgate said:
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...TGOHF666 said:
She’s going nowhere.Gallowgate said:Priti Patel
Drip... drip... drip...
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Wow. Ok.
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄0 -
There is a decent chance it will kick some of our weaker looking final salary pension schemes back towards surplus.LostPassword said:
Yes, in the initial period now and next year I would agree with that. I was thinking more long term in terms of the effect of a large number of deaths of the retired.rcs1000 said:
I disagree.LostPassword said:
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.Chameleon said:From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.
Nice big bump for the Treasury from IHT receipts as well. impact on the housing market is, um, uncertain.0 -
Given their awful ratings, I'm sure they appreciate your attentionAramintaMoonbeamQC said:I hate this bit of Super Tuesday, when Wolf Blitzer has to fill for hours, without so much as a Key Race Alert.
0 -
Biden 1.77
Bernie 3s
Betfair nom odds0 -
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.0 -
I am still waiting for the airport thriller next novel set in an internet forum where our hero passes himself off as an ordinary poster when really he is investigating the evil duo of Smith & Son who challenge democracy and freedom by wagering insane amount of money in the international betting markets in order to skew elections so that they own all the money in the western banking system.Endillion said:
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.Mysticrose said:
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.Casino_Royale said:You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......0 -
A call I have not made.Philip_Thompson said:
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.Cyclefree said:
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
1 -
Just keep your sunny side up, or it's no yolk. An eggscellent point.IanB2 said:
That’s the trouble with over easy solutions.Benpointer said:
Sounds like scrambled thinking to me.rottenborough said:CNN now saying we should thoroughly cook eggs to avoid the plague.
Have I missed something?0 -
Again, there's a bit of a gap between innocent until proven guilty and simply calling bullshit. Calling bullshit is making a pretty firm determination, one I suspect it would be harder to resile from should evidence then emerge to satisfaction because you're pretty committed. As compared to not calling bullshit, but treating things seriously without simply taking any allegation as proof in itself - as has been gone over a lot with various police investigatory bungling.Philip_Thompson said:
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.kle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
I don't think most people (besides some of the aforementioned police) would have a problem with innocent until proven guilty (Edit: though as cyclefree notes the test is likely not as severe). How you get to calling bullshit on it from there I do not know.0 -
I'm not trading, am happy enough with my position tbh. Slightly longer Biden over Sanders but nothing massiveCasino_Royale said:0 -
Fair point but it scanned poorly to me like a split infinitive.rcs1000 said:
To be fair, he put the word alleged before "bullying". If he put it in front of "victims" as well, then the sentence would have scanned poorly.Philip_Thompson said:
"victims".Gallowgate said:
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...TGOHF666 said:
She’s going nowhere.Gallowgate said:Priti Patel
Drip... drip... drip...
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Wow. Ok.
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄0 -
China doesn't have a free health service?NickPalmer said:Really interesting (and I have to say impressive) piece on how China has apparently turned the corner on the virus:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.0 -
Indeed. It is a call Labour and a few posters here (I believe) have made though. That she should be replaced until this is investigated.Cyclefree said:
A call I have not made.Philip_Thompson said:
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.Cyclefree said:
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.0 -
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/government-urged-make-complaints-procedure-against-ministers-independentrcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure1 -
I think part of the issue with discussing Covid-19 is that it is difficult to propose a nuanced outcome to the epidemic without either being accused of apocalyptic scaremongering (from more optimistic people) or blasé ignorance (from more pessimistic people).
At this stage I think the pattern of infection suggests that we can't contain the virus; that the overall mortality rate is low; that older people and people with preexisting health conditions are significantly more likely to die; and that there will be significant social, political and economic consequences.
The best comparison might be to 9/11. From a purely dispassionate standpoint, 3000 deaths from a terrorist incident is not the apocalypse, and I would assume that more people around the world died from starvation or preventable illnesses on September 11th 2001 than from terrorism. However, 9/11 had huge geopolitical consequences that are still evident today. Similiarly, although Covid-19 isn't the apocalypse, it is still going to shape government and corporate policies moving forward. I imagine that we will be able to talk of "pre" and "post" Covid-19 societies and economies.
At one end of the scale, the impossibility of containing outbreaks such as these in 'free' Western countries could help to justify more intensive tracking of individual citizens (as is the case in China) to help contact anyone who might have been exposed to the virus.
On the other, this is a huge moment for remote working - some huge businesses have been forced into a grand experiment by asking their employees to work from home, and I would expect that they will take the opportunity to evaluate staff productivity when working remotely, which might lead to post-virus changes to their work structure.0 -
If you wish, then based on Ms Patel's past performances on countering CounterTerrorism as well as some of her sartorial crimes, I shall be happy to call for her to go now.Cyclefree said:
A call I have not made.Philip_Thompson said:
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.Cyclefree said:
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense. 0 -
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases. Or in disciplinary investigations involving personal conduct (and I’ve been involved in more than a few, professionally). “Balance of probabilities” is the test.Philip_Thompson said:
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.kle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.2 -
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.0 -
There are methods to formally complain today, the FDA is just unhappy with how the complaints are then handled and would like a different method to handle the complaint.IanB2 said:
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/government-urged-make-complaints-procedure-against-ministers-independentrcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
My view is that there is an investigation. Let's see what it comes back with.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
Doesn't mean formal complaints aren't permitted currently. They are, but none were ever made.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said the UK government already had a "robust process" for dealing with complaints.
"Where a civil servant has experienced any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination by a minister they are able to raise this through their line management chain," they said. "It will be escalated to the departmental permanent secretary and the Cabinet Office."0 -
How do you actually do that? I hear Amercians say it "I call bullsh*t" and I have visions of people opening their front doors and shouting "Bullsh*t!" like it is a dog that has gone missing.Philip_Thompson said:
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshitkle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
What do your neighbours say?
1 -
Indeed and right now the evidence I see says on a balance of probabilities this is people who dislike Patel's politics out to get her.Cyclefree said:
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases. Or in disciplinary investigations involving personal conduct (and I’ve been involved in more than a few, professionally). “Balance of probabilities” is the test.Philip_Thompson said:
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.kle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.
That's based on slim evidence, but that's all we have, with zero formal complaints having been issued before this blew up. If there were a track record of complaints before this blew up that might be a different matter.0 -
Weirdly though there is in reality a similar duo. Smithson and son. Shrewd operators though they undoubtedly are, they're very much the good guys.Beibheirli_C said:
I am still waiting for the airport thriller next novel set in an internet forum where our hero passes himself off as an ordinary poster when really he is investigating the evil duo of Smith & Son who challenge democracy and freedom by wagering insane amount of money in the international betting markets in order to skew elections so that they own all the money in the western banking system.Endillion said:
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.Mysticrose said:
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.Casino_Royale said:You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......
(is that a rope i see before my neck!)0 -
Agreed. In my experience the markets lag PB (and the polling evidence) by a significant margin. I've made a decent amount of money for a student on SCons 2015, Con majority 2019, and the various ups and downs of this Dem race (just before SC it became clear that it was basically a two horse race).Casino_Royale said:0 -
Well rcs was right, its not just unlikely its categorically untrue. Even the article linked to shows there is a complaints mechanism at present.kle4 said:
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
The union wishes there were a different mechanism like in Scotland, that's not the same as saying there is no mechanism to file a complaint.0 -
Please stop your dog shitting on my lawn?Beibheirli_C said:
How do you actually do that? I hear Amercians say it "I call bullsh*t" and I have visions of people opening their front doors and shouting "Bullsh*t!" like it is a dog that has gone missing.Philip_Thompson said:
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshitkle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
What do your neighbours say?
1 -
Prediction: the coronavirus threat will suspend normal politics to such an extent that for the next 6 months the Government can behave as if it had a majority of 500. Things that would never have been allowed to stand or pass before will be ignored or receive mere shrugs.
TL;DR: Priti's going nooooowhere.0 -
A judge in TN has ruled that some polling stations affected by the tornadoes will remain open until 10pm (11pm Eastern)0
-
It isn't so expensive.rottenborough said:
China doesn't have a free health service?NickPalmer said:Really interesting (and I have to say impressive) piece on how China has apparently turned the corner on the virus:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.0 -
Prediction: Sanders wins Vermont !1
-
From a westerners perspective, or from a Chinese peasants perspective?Pulpstar said:
It isn't so expensive.rottenborough said:
China doesn't have a free health service?NickPalmer said:Really interesting (and I have to say impressive) piece on how China has apparently turned the corner on the virus:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.0 -
Going out on a limb there!Pulpstar said:Prediction: Sanders wins Vermont !
0 -
Is Biden the Comeback Kid?TGOHF666 said:Biden 1.77
Bernie 3s
Betfair nom odds0 -
I am in 2 minds about her. She can appear quite dim - the counter-terrorism interview and misleading the House of Commons over the number of EU citizens with settled status, for instance. She was sacked for lying and ignoring the rules and I do wonder how attached to the rule of law she is. Plus her sartorial crimes.Beibheirli_C said:
If you wish, then based on Ms Patel's past performances on countering CounterTerrorism as well as some of her sartorial crimes, I shall be happy to call for her to go now.Cyclefree said:
A call I have not made.Philip_Thompson said:
Looking into the allegations absolutely should happen.Cyclefree said:
Indeed. Remember how Tories salivated over the prospect of blaming Blair and his cronies over the death of Dr David Kelly. All those Labour Ministers and advisors were just doing their job in a government which had a sizeable majority was what Tories did not say at the time but are now.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
Who knows where the truth lies re Miss Patel. I don’t assume she is in the wrong - or the only one who may have behaved badly - but the allegations should be looked into properly, for everyone’s sake.
Calls that she should go now before the investigation is nonsense.
OTOH her instincts were right over HK, contrary to Raab’s and she showed a very human empathy with Harry Dunn’s family. And there are reports that the Home Office has resisted giving her a copy of the report on grooming gangs which, if true, seems extraordinary.
I do wonder whether her real problem is that she has been promoted too early and that some of the allegations arise from her not having the experience or guile to know how to deal with those reporting to her. I suspect also that she may be good at managing up but not at managing down and has insufficient experience actually how to get things done in a large organisation, even one reporting to you. That may be an overly charitable view. But the Home Office is not exactly famed for its competence, is it?0 -
WesternPhilip_Thompson said:
From a westerners perspective, or from a Chinese peasants perspective?Pulpstar said:
It isn't so expensive.rottenborough said:
China doesn't have a free health service?NickPalmer said:Really interesting (and I have to say impressive) piece on how China has apparently turned the corner on the virus:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.0 -
I deliberately extended the point to include procedures which were confused or lacking (which is a matter of personal perception), not simply absent entirely. That they do exist here may well be right, but the point was it would not be that surprising if there were none. It's like finding a parody Trump tweet that says something stupid - sure, its important to know that it is not real in this case and so what is right and and what is wrong, but even if right it would not be unlikely that he would say something stupid. So they have procedures here, fine, I for one didn't say they didn't, it was a wider comment about poor procedures in administration being generally likely.Philip_Thompson said:
Well rcs was right, its not just unlikely its categorically untrue. Even the article linked to shows there is a complaints mechanism at present.kle4 said:
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formanister.Philip_Thompson said:
FormaFoxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaineople put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
The union wishes there were a different mechanism like in Scotland, that's not the same as saying there is no mechanism to file a complaint.0 -
Other than clearly being the biggest bill in the world.Pulpstar said:
It isn't so expensive.rottenborough said:
China doesn't have a free health service?NickPalmer said:Really interesting (and I have to say impressive) piece on how China has apparently turned the corner on the virus:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
Written by Americans, it mentions in passing a snag in this situation of not having a health system free at the point of use (as they think is the case in "the West") - it discourages people from getting tested, as they'll have to pay for the test (or drain their insurance allowance). China doesn't have a free health service either, but they made it free in this case so as to remove the obstacle.
Sometimes a fact will come along that staggers me.
I should let you buy me lunch!
0 -
That will never make a decent plot though... you need villiansOmnium said:
Weirdly though there is in reality a similar duo. Smithson and son. Shrewd operators though they undoubtedly are, they're very much the good guys.Beibheirli_C said:
I am still waiting for the airport thriller next novel set in an internet forum where our hero passes himself off as an ordinary poster when really he is investigating the evil duo of Smith & Son who challenge democracy and freedom by wagering insane amount of money in the international betting markets in order to skew elections so that they own all the money in the western banking system.Endillion said:
I'm still waiting for the gigantic snowstorm that you were absolutely certain was going to either force the last election to be delayed, or heavily influence the result.Mysticrose said:
I know that was aimed at Eadric but you really are being a dick. Eadric has posted some superb, informed, debate on this topic and has been proved right.Casino_Royale said:You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
And that's really what this is about. You just hate the fact that Sean Thomas (who may occasionally appear a tad arrogant) is right. And you're not.
In the meantime, I shall amuse myself by ignoring the latest entertainment fad - "Return of the living dead" featuring Bernie Biden and Joe Sanders......
(is that a rope i see before my neck!)
0 -
When did people give up on googling?kle4 said:
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
Edit: Or, you know, reading the thread.0 -
Not true. There was at least one case of a complaint leading to a payout of £25k to the complainant.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed and right now the evidence I see says on a balance of probabilities this is people who dislike Patel's politics out to get her.Cyclefree said:
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases. Or in disciplinary investigations involving personal conduct (and I’ve been involved in more than a few, professionally). “Balance of probabilities” is the test.Philip_Thompson said:
Unless or until some actual evidence comes out I'm calling bullshit. No complaints, no evidence and innocent until proven guilty.kle4 said:
Bit of a gap from it being harder to prove the case in that circumstance to calling bullshit on the whole thing.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessary but if channels to resolve the matter are made available but not used then it becomes much harder to prove the case. For very good reason.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.
What it is for Cabinet Office inquiries probably depends on the political embarrassment factor for the government.
That's based on slim evidence, but that's all we have, with zero formal complaints having been issued before this blew up. If there were a track record of complaints before this blew up that might be a different matter.0 -
Of course. Even in the normal course of things people only go when politically the cost of retaining them is too high, not because of any logic of if the offense (proven or otherwise) merits that. Still worth seeing a process through so one can decide at the conclusion if it was a storm in a teacup or a whitewash, but alleged or proven facts are only part of it, and not even the major part.BluestBlue said:
TL;DR: Priti's going nooooowhere.0 -
For what it's worth, the Miami Heat mascot is called - Burnie0
-
Comeback CootAnabobazina said:
Is Biden the Comeback Kid?TGOHF666 said:Biden 1.77
Bernie 3s
Betfair nom odds0 -
You didn't say it, @IanB2 mistakenly said it, which is whom rcs1000 replied to.kle4 said:I deliberately extended the point to include procedures which were confused or lacking (which is a matter of personal perception), not simply absent entirely. That they do exist here may well be right, but the point was it would not be that surprising if there were none. It's like finding a parody Trump tweet that says something stupid - sure, its important to know that it is not real in this case and so what is right and and what is wrong, but even if right it would not be unlikely that he would say something stupid. So they have procedures here, fine, I for one didn't say they didn't, it was a wider comment about poor procedures in administration being generally likely.
As both articles @IanB2 quoted said there are existing complaint procedures even if the union wishes the way they are handled is different - and no complaints were ever filed, that is the one fact we know in this saga already before the investigation begins.
Maybe there were some actions Patel took that were so egregious, so horrific, it led to no choice but to resign and not put in a complaint. Seems unlikely to me, but its possible. Its possible that there were some more minor issues that could have had a complaint which could have led to a ticking off or training or a suggestion to handle matters differently next time if a complaint had been investigated . . . if that's the case then Patel should stay as she would have if proper procedures had been followed.
Patel should go if she's committed Gross Misconduct - yet there are no complaints on the record to suggest that.0 -
Did you read that article? Right to the bottom?LostPassword said:
When did people give up on googling?kle4 said:
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
Edit: Or, you know, reading the thread.
Responding to the comments, a government spokesperson said: "Government departments have established procedures in place to deal with any complaints."0 -
Under that scenario will finally find out who really are essential workers.eadric said:
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.rottenborough said:
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.0 -
Have got my 538 cheat sheet ready1
-
You clearly missed the Chief Science Officer earlier who lucidly explained why you are wrong.eadric said:
I reckon this is the best thing we could do. Accept the economy is going to make a massive hit. 5% drop in GDP, whatever. Who cares if the alternative is bubonic apocalypse, and 5% dead, and 10% f*cked.rottenborough said:
Just tell us all to stay home, for two months, apart from essential workers. Do the best we can via the Net. Let the virus burn out.
We will manage. It will be grim, but we will cope. Trying to soldier on seems stupid.
The time may come when that is necessary but that will depend upon science, not panicking. If we start doing that now when its not necessary as its not in the wild in this country yet, then what happens in 2 months time if the government believes it is necessary by then due to the science and evidence - but we've already had 2 months of lockdown and can't cope with another 2 months?
If you're going to do that you have to do it at the right time. It would need to be a Goldilocks lockdown, not too early, not too late.0 -
It isn't necessary but if you haven't first tried a grievance you are unlikely to win as your employer can claim they would have dealt with it if you had followed the grievance procedure. Even if you do win, any damages awarded can be reduced by up to 25%. Employment lawyers I know would always recommend going through the grievance procedure first.Cyclefree said:
You don’t understand what a claim for constructive dismissal is. It’s not necessary to have put in a formal complaint. I explained the key elements a few threads back.Philip_Thompson said:
Yet he's the one claiming constructive dismissal, and complaining to the media, without either him or anyone else junior putting in even one formal complaint.tyson said:YBarddCwsc said:An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think you need to read what Rutnam said....he was talking about Patel's behaviour with junior advisors
I call bullshit. Hope he wasn't around when Gordon Brown was in the bunker within infamous flying Nokias.1 -
I knew the Comeback Kid. Senator, you are no Comeback Kid.Tim_B said:
Comeback CootAnabobazina said:
Is Biden the Comeback Kid?TGOHF666 said:Biden 1.77
Bernie 3s
Betfair nom odds0 -
Earlier in the article:Philip_Thompson said:
Did you read that article? Right to the bottom?LostPassword said:
When did people give up on googling?kle4 said:
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
Edit: Or, you know, reading the thread.
Responding to the comments, a government spokesperson said: "Government departments have established procedures in place to deal with any complaints."
"It is simply not good enough that there is currently no formal process for a civil servant to raise complaints against a minister."0 -
Said a union spokesman who wanted change, who was countered by the fact that there is.LostPassword said:
Earlier in the article:Philip_Thompson said:
Did you read that article? Right to the bottom?LostPassword said:
When did people give up on googling?kle4 said:
I don't know if there is or is not, but why would that seem unlikely? It seems entirely possible to me that, where politics and administration intermingle, procedures could be confused, lacking, inconsistent or contradictory. Knowing public adminstration I'd suggest its more likely than not!rcs1000 said:
So, there are formal ways in which House of Commons employees can complain about the Speaker, but there are none for civil servants about Ministers?IanB2 said:
The reason no formal complaints were put in about Patel is that there is no formal way in which civil servants can complain about their minister.Philip_Thompson said:
Formal complaints were put in about Bercow and they got shelved without an investigation. That is what we complained about, the opposition deliberately spiked investigating him because they didn't want to see him removed if he was guilty.Foxy said:
Err, no.Philip_Thompson said:I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
It is the PB Tories that are committing that error. Clutching their pearls over Bercow, but white knighting Priti.
No formal complaints have been put in about Patel and people want her sacked without an investigation.
I think there should have been an investigation when Bercow was around, and there should be an investigation into any complaints people put in about Patel, but it is innocent until proven guilty either way.
Seems unlikely to me.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/110046/civil-service-union-slams-lack-complaints-procedure
Edit: Or, you know, reading the thread.
Responding to the comments, a government spokesperson said: "Government departments have established procedures in place to deal with any complaints."
"It is simply not good enough that there is currently no formal process for a civil servant to raise complaints against a minister."0 -
Sanders 56 Biden 14 VT;
Biden 43 Sanders 23 VA is the expectation0 -
-
Anyone know what we should be expecting in Virginia or Vermont? What is par for both?0
