Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:gooner1 said:
H’mm , Corbyn supporters have to support Patel, and vice versa in your world I assume?
Not sure about that , at all..
In my world Gooner if you're a bully you're not fit for public office.Not sure about that , at all..
If the EHRC say your party could have tackled anti-semitism better "if the leadership had chosen to do so" whilst you're in charge you're not fit for public office either.
So I'd struggle with anyone who says that Corbyn is still fit for public office arguing that Patel isn't.
They're both unfit.
gooner1 said:
I don’t recall Tuna or anyone else saying that. Didn’t Tuna say it was up to the Labour Party themselves as to what becomes of Corbyn?
I don't know why Tuna is discussing Corbyn, other than to perhaps illustrate how the current Labour leader acts strongly against abhorrent MPs whereas Boris doesn't act at all.Tuna said:
markyb_lcy said:
What report are you talking about here?
The report that says Patel engaged in bullying wasn’t written by an “eminent civil servant”, it was written by a number 10 ethics advisor, a direct Johnson appointee..
The report that says Patel engaged in bullying wasn’t written by an “eminent civil servant”, it was written by a number 10 ethics advisor, a direct Johnson appointee..
Wikipedia said:
Sir Alexander Claud Stuart Allan KCB is a senior British civil servant who was, until 2011, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Head of Intelligence Assessment for Her Majesty's Government.
Definitely not an eminent civil servant....RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I don't know why Tuna is discussing Corbyn, other than to perhaps illustrate how the current Labour leader acts strongly against abhorrent MPs whereas Boris doesn't act at all.
bhstewie brought up Corbyn in an attempt to 'corner' people defending Patel. You can take that up with him if you want.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If he was shown to have bullied his junior staff then same as Patel there's no place for that kind of thing in the senior leadership of a modern organisation.
What if he was shown to consistently ignore the requests of his boss, to withhold information from them and to make decisions that went directly against theirs? Is there place for that? That appears to be what the report is saying, and suggests why he resigned before it was produced.Tuna said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I don't know why Tuna is discussing Corbyn, other than to perhaps illustrate how the current Labour leader acts strongly against abhorrent MPs whereas Boris doesn't act at all.
bhstewie brought up Corbyn in an attempt to 'corner' people defending Patel. You can take that up with him if you want.I've laid out my reasoning above.
It isn't always a plot or a trap you know.
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If he was shown to have bullied his junior staff then same as Patel there's no place for that kind of thing in the senior leadership of a modern organisation.
What if he was shown to consistently ignore the requests of his boss, to withhold information from them and to make decisions that went directly against theirs? Is there place for that? That appears to be what the report is saying, and suggests why he resigned before it was produced.If he's been shown to do any of those things I've been clear.
Deal with him per the Civil Service disciplinary code that he agrees to abide by as part of being in such a senior role.
Tuna said:
markyb_lcy said:
What report are you talking about here?
The report that says Patel engaged in bullying wasn’t written by an “eminent civil servant”, it was written by a number 10 ethics advisor, a direct Johnson appointee..
The report that says Patel engaged in bullying wasn’t written by an “eminent civil servant”, it was written by a number 10 ethics advisor, a direct Johnson appointee..
Wikipedia said:
Sir Alexander Claud Stuart Allan KCB is a senior British civil servant who was, until 2011, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Head of Intelligence Assessment for Her Majesty's Government.
Definitely not an eminent civil servant....bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm not trying to corner anyone Tuna.
I've laid out my reasoning above.
It isn't always a plot or a trap you know.
Which also makes it a trap sometimes.I've laid out my reasoning above.
It isn't always a plot or a trap you know.
You seemed to have feigned interest in the answers to a question you posed and then deliberately misinterpreted the answer then attacked what you misinterpreted.
markyb_lcy said:
He may have been in the past, but he was not a “civil servant” when producing this report. He was a govt advisor, employed by number 10.
Poor old Boris was obviously tricked by Alex Allan when he was fooled into appointing him as his Independent Advisor.He couldn't possibly have known of his Civil Service past and his obvious inherent biases when faced with a minister bullying civil servants.
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If he was shown to have bullied his junior staff then same as Patel there's no place for that kind of thing in the senior leadership of a modern organisation.
What if he was shown to consistently ignore the requests of his boss, to withhold information from them and to make decisions that went directly against theirs? Is there place for that? That appears to be what the report is saying, and suggests why he resigned before it was produced.Electro1980 said:
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If he was shown to have bullied his junior staff then same as Patel there's no place for that kind of thing in the senior leadership of a modern organisation.
What if he was shown to consistently ignore the requests of his boss, to withhold information from them and to make decisions that went directly against theirs? Is there place for that? That appears to be what the report is saying, and suggests why he resigned before it was produced.bhstewie said:
hstewie said:markyb_lcy said:
He may have been in the past, but he was not a “civil servant” when producing this report. He was a govt advisor, employed by number 10.
Poor old Boris was obviously tricked by Alex Allan when he was fooled into appointing him as his Independent Advisor.He couldn't possibly have known of his Civil Service past and his obvious inherent biases when faced with a minister bullying civil servants.
Tuna said:
Seriously Stewie, you're looking less and less rational these days. What are you on about?
I'm happy for anyone reading to form their own view on that.The report wasn't written by a Civil Servant.
He wouldn't be very independent if he was still in the Civil Service.
If Boris didn't trust him to be impartial he shouldn't have appointed him.
Tuna said:
You misread my comment.
I didn't say it would be a good move for Labour at all, but it's not my choice to make - any more than it's my choice whether or not to employ Patel.
If Labour did put Corbyn in a senior position, I think it would be a shame on their party, a disastrous mistake for Starmer and a gift for the Tories. But it is not my right to withhold or grant forgiveness.
And for the record, I am being clear here that forgiveness should always be considered if people can commit to change. That applies to criminals, racists, UKIP voters, bullies and other 'undesirables'. It is you that digs up decades old comments and holds them in evidence against people, not I.
The difference here is that Corbyn has made it plain that he will not change, whereas the report into Patel says that change had already been made.
Fair points, well made. My only caveat being I suspect Patel staying in a job has less to do with her willingness to change and is more based in political expediency as Boris circles the wagons. Patel has had too many chances now in my opinion, others are available I didn't say it would be a good move for Labour at all, but it's not my choice to make - any more than it's my choice whether or not to employ Patel.
If Labour did put Corbyn in a senior position, I think it would be a shame on their party, a disastrous mistake for Starmer and a gift for the Tories. But it is not my right to withhold or grant forgiveness.
And for the record, I am being clear here that forgiveness should always be considered if people can commit to change. That applies to criminals, racists, UKIP voters, bullies and other 'undesirables'. It is you that digs up decades old comments and holds them in evidence against people, not I.
The difference here is that Corbyn has made it plain that he will not change, whereas the report into Patel says that change had already been made.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Tuna said:
bhstewie brought up Corbyn in an attempt to 'corner' people defending Patel. You can take that up with him if you want.
Ah. Once again it is someone else's fault. Always the same with some posters.hstewie brought up Corbyn in an attempt to 'corner' people defending Patel. You can take that up with him if you want.biggbn said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Tuna said:
bhstewie brought up Corbyn in an attempt to 'corner' people defending Patel. You can take that up with him if you want.
Ah. Once again it is someone else's fault. Always the same with some posters.hstewie brought up Corbyn in an attempt to 'corner' people defending Patel. You can take that up with him if you want.Guilty as charged.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff