Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 6)
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Fair enough and I'm happy to take your word for that as in spite of people thinking I'm some sort of snowflake I know it's sometimes better to be candid but that there are boundaries and I'd still say that a Home Secretary and junior civil servants is a very different and unequal relationship.
I'm going to ask an emotive question so feel free to tell me to do one but what's your view on your sons bullying?
You said they put an assistant in there who watched her and realised there was a real problem.
What would you have thought if the assistant fed back to the head and the head simply said there wasn't a problem?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Yeah of course I do. I'm going to ask an emotive question so feel free to tell me to do one but what's your view on your sons bullying?
You said they put an assistant in there who watched her and realised there was a real problem.
What would you have thought if the assistant fed back to the head and the head simply said there wasn't a problem?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
We had pulled him out of the school and told the head to open her eyes and she can answer to those above her if she wasn't going to listen to us, and other parents.
We pulled him out as we presumed that would be the case. Head well and truly buried.
It then turned out on the third day of him being out a stand in was in as 'she was not well'. The kids were loving him and he was staying till half term. My lad went back in. He loved school again.
So I guess my answer is, we expected, as usual, for the boss to try and cover any thing up as it is also a failing in them. The reality is once something was done we had far more respect for her.
I know you think I am some hard right back the tories no matter what sort of arse. But I'm not.
I am against people who don't take self responsibility, no matter what side they are on.
Tuna said:
andy_s said:
Some of it I think is that there is a distinct difference in definition, compare wiki to what is actually in the code and there are important but subtle differences.
Perhaps down to common perception of 'bullying' conjuring up images of Tom Brown's Schoolday's, being deliberately picked on, being intentionally harassed, being made to feel inferior due to immutable characteristic and being innocent in the face of someone who is malicious and doing it for fun/casually and being unable to rectify that. That's what pops into my head when I think 'bully'.
Now we are in a situation [that we actually know little about] where 'bully' can be interpreted [as per the code] as someone faced with a manager who swears a lot, and then reports that he/she feels 'insulted and uncomfortable'. In my head that's just the boss being an ahole.
This is why I'm uncomfortable with both being an absolutist and a denier [there are obviously issues with style - stupid unforced error apart from anything else].
In the context of this being the fallout of internal war I'd perhaps want to know more before going to either extreme. I feel the truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle.
Such nuance has no place in this debate. Perhaps down to common perception of 'bullying' conjuring up images of Tom Brown's Schoolday's, being deliberately picked on, being intentionally harassed, being made to feel inferior due to immutable characteristic and being innocent in the face of someone who is malicious and doing it for fun/casually and being unable to rectify that. That's what pops into my head when I think 'bully'.
Now we are in a situation [that we actually know little about] where 'bully' can be interpreted [as per the code] as someone faced with a manager who swears a lot, and then reports that he/she feels 'insulted and uncomfortable'. In my head that's just the boss being an a
hole. This is why I'm uncomfortable with both being an absolutist and a denier [there are obviously issues with style - stupid unforced error apart from anything else].
In the context of this being the fallout of internal war I'd perhaps want to know more before going to either extreme. I feel the truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle.
Their team? Absolutely bullying. Our team? Are you sure it wasn't just raised voices?And to be clear, both sides engage in this behaviour, whilst claiming it's only the others who are so biased.
As most people are saying, the report and other comments make it seem that Patel really can't cope with a department that really isn't keen to be told what to do. That's a whole world of problems, and if Johnson has decided she should keep banging her head against that particular wall, we're going to find out soon enough if any sort of reconciliation is possible. I'm sure her detractors will be delighted to be proven right. But to be honest, a cabinet reshuffle may happen to come up where the problem can be swept under the carpet again.
"The definition of bullying adopted by the civil service accepts that legitimate, reasonable and constructive criticism of a worker’s performance will not amount to bullying. It defines bullying as intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition."
No need for any debate about what constitutes bullying (as if that excuses anything) as the very words of the report itself, tell us that she has been/is a bully, in the context of the definition that matters to her position.
Weighed, measured and definitely found wanting.
Tuna said:
Such nuance has no place in this debate. Their team? Absolutely bullying. Our team? Are you sure it wasn't just raised voices?
And to be clear, both sides engage in this behaviour, whilst claiming it's only the others who are so biased.
As most people are saying, the report and other comments make it seem that Patel really can't cope with a department that really isn't keen to be told what to do. That's a whole world of problems, and if Johnson has decided she should keep banging her head against that particular wall, we're going to find out soon enough if any sort of reconciliation is possible. I'm sure her detractors will be delighted to be proven right. But to be honest, a cabinet reshuffle may happen to come up where the problem can be swept under the carpet again.
Moving Priti Patel in a cabinet reshuffle won't give Priti the help she obviously needs. She has a history of poor behaviour and she has gone behind her bosses back in the past. This isn't behaviour that would be considered acceptable or normal in the workplace. If Priti is to fulfil her potential, then the tory party should offer assistance and support rather than give her another post and simply let her to continue to struggle to act responsibly towards her staff and with sensitivity. Their team? Absolutely bullying. Our team? Are you sure it wasn't just raised voices?And to be clear, both sides engage in this behaviour, whilst claiming it's only the others who are so biased.
As most people are saying, the report and other comments make it seem that Patel really can't cope with a department that really isn't keen to be told what to do. That's a whole world of problems, and if Johnson has decided she should keep banging her head against that particular wall, we're going to find out soon enough if any sort of reconciliation is possible. I'm sure her detractors will be delighted to be proven right. But to be honest, a cabinet reshuffle may happen to come up where the problem can be swept under the carpet again.
Tuna said:
IforB said:
Patel is a nasty bully. She's as thick as two short planks too. I spent some time at her request trying to explain how our autonomous ship was controlled and how the comms system worked when she made a PR visit.
It was like trying to teach a Labrador calculus. Not. A. Clue.
Now, I have spent a career as a flying instructor and training Captain, so I am very used to teaching people how to understand technical stuff. She was just offensively stupid, as well as incredibly rude and obnoxious to all.
An absolute horror.
I've heard she talks highly of you. It was like trying to teach a Labrador calculus. Not. A. Clue.
Now, I have spent a career as a flying instructor and training Captain, so I am very used to teaching people how to understand technical stuff. She was just offensively stupid, as well as incredibly rude and obnoxious to all.
An absolute horror.
It may be just me, but this kind of very personal attack, laced with intellectual snobbery, sits rather uncomfortably in a discussion about bullying.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:andy_s said:
Some of it I think is that there is a distinct difference in definition, compare wiki to what is actually in the code and there are important but subtle differences.
Perhaps down to common perception of 'bullying' conjuring up images of Tom Brown's Schoolday's, being deliberately picked on, being intentionally harassed, being made to feel inferior due to immutable characteristic and being innocent in the face of someone who is malicious and doing it for fun/casually and being unable to rectify that. That's what pops into my head when I think 'bully'.
Now we are in a situation [that we actually know little about] where 'bully' can be interpreted [as per the code] as someone faced with a manager who swears a lot, and then reports that he/she feels 'insulted and uncomfortable'. In my head that's just the boss being an ahole.
This is why I'm uncomfortable with both being an absolutist and a denier [there are obviously issues with style - stupid unforced error apart from anything else].
In the context of this being the fallout of internal war I'd perhaps want to know more before going to either extreme. I feel the truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle.
If you mention Tom Brown's Schooldays I suspect that may account for a fair bit of your perception of what bullying is.Perhaps down to common perception of 'bullying' conjuring up images of Tom Brown's Schoolday's, being deliberately picked on, being intentionally harassed, being made to feel inferior due to immutable characteristic and being innocent in the face of someone who is malicious and doing it for fun/casually and being unable to rectify that. That's what pops into my head when I think 'bully'.
Now we are in a situation [that we actually know little about] where 'bully' can be interpreted [as per the code] as someone faced with a manager who swears a lot, and then reports that he/she feels 'insulted and uncomfortable'. In my head that's just the boss being an a
hole. This is why I'm uncomfortable with both being an absolutist and a denier [there are obviously issues with style - stupid unforced error apart from anything else].
In the context of this being the fallout of internal war I'd perhaps want to know more before going to either extreme. I feel the truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle.
Times change and so do definitions of things like bullying.
You can only go back to the independent advisor on ministerial standards report I think and if he has concluded it was bullying behaviour that's good enough for me.
Maybe your definition of what "bullying" is is just out of touch?
If bullying is now 'I was shouted at and it made me feel uncomfortable' then that'd be half the population at some stage. Rude, unnecessary, poor management, lack of empathy and/or self-control - all agreed, but bullying? It's sort of like when you call someone a Nazi because they want a more controlled border or something, it just weakens the sense to the detriment of the issue.
Like I say, she should shape up or ship out, I've no particular sympathy..
don'tbesilly said:
El stovey said:
Dr Jekyll said:
El stovey said:
This is the point.
The independent report that we can’t read because Boris is again avoiding scrutiny says she was bullying and broke the ministerial code. Boris tried to influence the investigation and is now hiding the findings. Obviously because it makes Patel look bad and his decision to keep her on.
It doesn’t matter whether random posters on the internet that haven’t seen the report think it’s bullying or not.
It says she made occasional and unintentional breaches of the ministerial code.The independent report that we can’t read because Boris is again avoiding scrutiny says she was bullying and broke the ministerial code. Boris tried to influence the investigation and is now hiding the findings. Obviously because it makes Patel look bad and his decision to keep her on.
It doesn’t matter whether random posters on the internet that haven’t seen the report think it’s bullying or not.
'My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect.
'Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.
'To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.'
“It says she made occasional and unintentional breaches of the ministerial code”
It doesn’t say that at all.
Sir Alex Allen even resigned after Boris overrode his findings.
If Boris released the report we’d be able to see what it actually said and the context. Not some quotes chosen to make Patel look least bad after he asked for the report to look palatable.
El stovey said:
Tuna is this ANOTHER of those occasions where you’re definitely not sticking up for Patel and Boris but spend ages sticking up for them?
No. Is this ANOTHER one of those occasions where you make up what I've said rather than reading my posts? Do you think Ifor's turn of phrase is appropriate given the topic?
El stovey said:
don'tbesilly said:
El stovey said:
Dr Jekyll said:
El stovey said:
This is the point.
The independent report that we can’t read because Boris is again avoiding scrutiny says she was bullying and broke the ministerial code. Boris tried to influence the investigation and is now hiding the findings. Obviously because it makes Patel look bad and his decision to keep her on.
It doesn’t matter whether random posters on the internet that haven’t seen the report think it’s bullying or not.
It says she made occasional and unintentional breaches of the ministerial code.The independent report that we can’t read because Boris is again avoiding scrutiny says she was bullying and broke the ministerial code. Boris tried to influence the investigation and is now hiding the findings. Obviously because it makes Patel look bad and his decision to keep her on.
It doesn’t matter whether random posters on the internet that haven’t seen the report think it’s bullying or not.
'My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect.
'Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.
'To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.'
“It says she made occasional and unintentional breaches of the ministerial code”
It doesn’t say that at all.
Sir Alex Allen even resigned after Boris overrode his findings.
If Boris released the report we’d be able to see what it actually said and the context. Not some quotes chosen to make Patel look least bad after he asked for the report to look palatable.
It came from the same report that others are quoting from and quoting "chosen quotes" to make Patel look as bad as possible and backs up what a poster stated earlier on.
I'm not sure where your struggle comes from?
Are you denying the extract used wasn't from the report?
Tuna said:
El stovey said:
Tuna is this ANOTHER of those occasions where you’re definitely not sticking up for Patel and Boris but spend ages sticking up for them?
No. Is this ANOTHER one of those occasions where you make up what I've said rather than reading my posts? Do you think Ifor's turn of phrase is appropriate given the topic?
Now you’re accusing me of deliberately making things up (again apparently). Is there anyone on here that thinks Boris should go that you haven’t called a liar now?
Tuna said:
No. Is this ANOTHER one of those occasions where you make up what I've said rather than reading my posts?
Do you think Ifor's turn of phrase is appropriate given the topic?
Steady, you’ll be getting a “ Just shut up” followed by “ you’re an idiot “ response from our anti bullying hero.Do you think Ifor's turn of phrase is appropriate given the topic?
don'tbesilly said:
How did I get that?
It came from the same report that others are quoting from and quoting "chosen quotes" to make Patel look as bad as possible and backs up what a poster stated earlier on.
I'm not sure where your struggle comes from?
Are you denying the extract used wasn't from the report?
I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of the cherry picked extract, It came from the same report that others are quoting from and quoting "chosen quotes" to make Patel look as bad as possible and backs up what a poster stated earlier on.
I'm not sure where your struggle comes from?
Are you denying the extract used wasn't from the report?
Do you honestly think that Sir Alex Allen resigned over Boris overriding his findings if his finding were that Patel had been that,
Dr Jekyll said:
It says she made occasional and unintentional breaches of the ministerial code.
Even your quote doesn’t say she made unintentional breeches of the code. gizlaroc said:
Yeah of course I do.
We had pulled him out of the school and told the head to open her eyes and she can answer to those above her if she wasn't going to listen to us, and other parents.
We pulled him out as we presumed that would be the case. Head well and truly buried.
It then turned out on the third day of him being out a stand in was in as 'she was not well'. The kids were loving him and he was staying till half term. My lad went back in. He loved school again.
So I guess my answer is, we expected, as usual, for the boss to try and cover any thing up as it is also a failing in them. The reality is once something was done we had far more respect for her.
I know you think I am some hard right back the tories no matter what sort of arse. But I'm not.
I am against people who don't take self responsibility, no matter what side they are on.
It's not a tory thing it's just the sniff test and does this smell right?We had pulled him out of the school and told the head to open her eyes and she can answer to those above her if she wasn't going to listen to us, and other parents.
We pulled him out as we presumed that would be the case. Head well and truly buried.
It then turned out on the third day of him being out a stand in was in as 'she was not well'. The kids were loving him and he was staying till half term. My lad went back in. He loved school again.
So I guess my answer is, we expected, as usual, for the boss to try and cover any thing up as it is also a failing in them. The reality is once something was done we had far more respect for her.
I know you think I am some hard right back the tories no matter what sort of arse. But I'm not.
I am against people who don't take self responsibility, no matter what side they are on.
The experience of your son shows how toxic bullying is when it's someone with power over the victim.
You mentioned the person above her and again that's the parallel here of what if the person above her was not only her boss but a mate?
The Civil Servants don't seem to have much of a voice here and it's important to remember that Johnson is in charge of the Government and his decision making should also represent the Civil Service.
If you were a Civil Servant waking up this morning how much confidence would you honestly have that if you made a complain that you'd get a fair hearing and that the ultimate decision maker had your interests at heard over his own political interests?
gooner1 said:
Tuna said:
No. Is this ANOTHER one of those occasions where you make up what I've said rather than reading my posts?
Do you think Ifor's turn of phrase is appropriate given the topic?
Steady, you’ll be getting a “ Just shut up” followed by “ you’re an idiot “ response from our anti bullying hero.Do you think Ifor's turn of phrase is appropriate given the topic?
andy_s said:
It isn't 'time' that changed definition, it's wiki vs the ministers code. If there is no intent but just the feels of the 'victim' then perhaps you can see how that too may be abused?
If bullying is now 'I was shouted at and it made me feel uncomfortable' then that'd be half the population at some stage. Rude, unnecessary, poor management, lack of empathy and/or self-control - all agreed, but bullying? It's sort of like when you call someone a Nazi because they want a more controlled border or something, it just weakens the sense to the detriment of the issue.
Like I say, she should shape up or ship out, I've no particular sympathy..
I think you'll find that in most modern workplaces the definition of bullying has moved past Tom Brown's Schooldays Andy.If bullying is now 'I was shouted at and it made me feel uncomfortable' then that'd be half the population at some stage. Rude, unnecessary, poor management, lack of empathy and/or self-control - all agreed, but bullying? It's sort of like when you call someone a Nazi because they want a more controlled border or something, it just weakens the sense to the detriment of the issue.
Like I say, she should shape up or ship out, I've no particular sympathy..
It doesn't mean you or I have to like it or always agree with it but it is what it is and if someone in a senior leadership position can't handle that they're not fit for a senior leadership position.
Respectfully you seem to be doing that thing where she should go and you don't have any sympathy but you don't seem prepared to concede that a home secretary abusing and intimidating junior staff is bullying because she wasn't stamping on their face or something.
Bit weird
gooner1 said:
markyb_lcy said:
Any chance we could at least keep the personal attacks to “things that have happened” rather than “things that you think a user might say”?
Which part of my post doesn’t come under the “ things that have happened” description.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff