Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 6)
Discussion
markyb_lcy said:
Must admit it is quite funny seeing the moral juxtaposition of some users who yesterday were basically saying bullying in govt is fine if it gets things done or if people “deserve it” and now here accusing other users of bullying and on their moral high ground calling it out 
Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
It’s Trumpian in nature.
It is always thus with people without a moral centre. They base everything on themselves because they are by definition self-absorbed on are only really interested in themselves. Wrong or right don't matter. It is only right when it is what they want and it is wrong when it is something they don't like.Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
It’s Trumpian in nature.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 23 November 12:57
This is why this thread is so appalling. You have people of all political persuasions ( I am not a Tory voter, others are) who display empathy and understanding. They have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. The fact that Johnson is a Tory, is irrelevant. People with an understanding of right and wrong are all saying this is wrong.
Then you have the rest. Those that blindly defend Johnson. They have no morality. If they did, they would join the rest of us in saying "this is wrong."
Political allegiance is irrelevant when it comes to morality. Most of us get that.
markyb_lcy said:
Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
I think that some on both sides of the debate are guilty of this. After all, you have one poster who believes that Gordon ' swearing, shouting, throwing stuff, grabbing people, throwing typist from her chair for typing too slowly' Brown is just a Twonk - but not a bully no sireee. And apparently it IS ok for a 5ft 9 15st bloke to shout and swear and be physically aggressive around people and still not be a bully, whereas a 5ft 3 Asian woman with a large posterior is an intimidating bully... Even though she is apparently more stupid than a Labrador dog. And she wasn't challenged in her behaviour because, well these senior civil servants are not able to do that....except some reading shows that Gus O'Donnell did manage to speak up to Mr Brown regarding his behaviour.....
Anyway, Patel should go, asap. Frankly she should never have been given the job in the first place given previous adventures on her part. Boris is being a total idiot for keeping her on. Loyalty to team is one thing, but she's well over the line here, even if her civil servants were being obstructive/unsupportive.
Johnson letter to ministers and permanent secretaries in which he states there is no place for bullying...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I have no idea how he can expect to be taken seriously.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I have no idea how he can expect to be taken seriously.
andymadmak said:
IforB said:
Political allegiance is irrelevant when it comes to morality. Most of us get that.
But Brown was just a Twonk, yeah? Righty ho. andymadmak said:
markyb_lcy said:
Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
I think that some on both sides of the debate are guilty of this. After all, you have one poster who believes that Gordon ' swearing, shouting, throwing stuff, grabbing people, throwing typist from her chair for typing too slowly' Brown is just a Twonk - but not a bully no sireee. And apparently it IS ok for a 5ft 9 15st bloke to shout and swear and be physically aggressive around people and still not be a bully, whereas a 5ft 3 Asian woman with a large posterior is an intimidating bully... Even though she is apparently more stupid than a Labrador dog. And she wasn't challenged in her behaviour because, well these senior civil servants are not able to do that....except some reading shows that Gus O'Donnell did manage to speak up to Mr Brown regarding his behaviour.....
Anyway, Patel should go, asap. Frankly she should never have been given the job in the first place given previous adventures on her part. Boris is being a total idiot for keeping her on. Loyalty to team is one thing, but she's well over the line here, even if her civil servants were being obstructive/unsupportive.
Regarding Brown (open question to anyone, to which I don’t already know the answer so I’m genuinely interested rather than trying to score points) ... was he ever objectively stated to have bullied by any independent investigation? I have a poor memory so I concede I don’t know the details.
markyb_lcy said:
Johnson letter to ministers and permanent secretaries in which he states there is no place for bullying...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I have no idea how he can expect to be taken seriously.
He can't. That's the problem.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I have no idea how he can expect to be taken seriously.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:andy_s said:
No - it's no criticism of Allan, he did what he is bound to do with the tools he has.
And no, just as I've said before really, if she's called someone a 'useless' because she's lacked self control because they have been undermining what she's been employed to do, and then they've gone off and said 'I feel insulted and belittled' with the knowledge that this falls into the definition of 'bullying' as per the code so it may lead to her sacking, my sympathies will be somewhat shifted.
I'm honestly surprised by that Andy and not in a good way.And no, just as I've said before really, if she's called someone a 'useless
' because she's lacked self control because they have been undermining what she's been employed to do, and then they've gone off and said 'I feel insulted and belittled' with the knowledge that this falls into the definition of 'bullying' as per the code so it may lead to her sacking, my sympathies will be somewhat shifted.I'm in my 40's and I have a thoroughly dark and sick sense of humour and can very often find myself having to bite my tongue.
I wouldn't ever consider it acceptable to call one of my staff a "useless
" and if my line manager or anyone senior to me called me one I'd find it equally unacceptable.I've never been to HR in my working life to complain about someone or something that's happened in the workplace though I have been in meetings where others have (not about me I might add).
That would cause me to do so if it happened.
It's thoroughly unacceptable in any modern professional workplace.
My 'benefit of doubt' comes from imagining you're not a decent bloke, but instead someone who is trying to subvert the business and gets on the wick of your boss who then snaps at you - you go in a huddle with your co-conspirators and decide to take it up higher as you see an opportunity to get rid of the boss, rather than any genuine feeling you've been 'picked on'.
All very Machiavellian I know, but indications in the same report point out it's not such an 'out there' scenario. Of course, I see other more straightforward scenarios as well, I've also described those.
This is the basis for my slight equivocation.
I'd like to think Cabinet and Mandarins operate in a modern professional workplace, however all the evidence points to it being thoroughly toxic, especially at the moment.
IforB said:
markyb_lcy said:
Must admit it is quite funny seeing the moral juxtaposition of some users who yesterday were basically saying bullying in govt is fine if it gets things done or if people “deserve it” and now here accusing other users of bullying and on their moral high ground calling it out
Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
It’s Trumpian in nature.
It is always thus with people without a moral centre. They base everything on themselves because they are by definition self-absorbed on are only really interested in themselves. Wrong or right don't matter. It is only right when it is what they want and it is wrong when it is something they don't like.Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
It’s Trumpian in nature.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 23 November 12:57
This is why this thread is so appalling. You have people of all political persuasions ( I am not a Tory voter, others are) who display empathy and understanding. They have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. The fact that Johnson is a Tory, is irrelevant. People with an understanding of right and wrong are all saying this is wrong.
Then you have the rest. Those that blindly defend Johnson. They have no morality. If they did, they would join the rest of us in saying "this is wrong."
Political allegiance is irrelevant when it comes to morality. Most of us get that.
Corbyn and his clan were constantly having to deny widespread bullying across the party.
Look at the cheering from those in Labour when Berger and the others felt they needed to walk out.
The bullying was not even being hid.
That was great for those who vote tory, it gave them the ammo the needed to call out Labour and drag the party through the mud.
And what has happening now with Patel is no different, and those on the left will milk this for all it's worth, and rightly so.
But let's not get carried away, we are talking about one person rather than a huge chunk of the party, and rather than use it as a political weapon I would be far more impressed if those from all around used to to actually learn something going forward.
As with the Barnard Castle debacle, it seems that there’s one rule for Boris and his chums and another for the rest of us.
I read today that the civil servant heading up the Windrush compensation scheme has resigned in frustration, 90% of the claimants have yet to receive compensation and nine have died while waiting.
I read today that the civil servant heading up the Windrush compensation scheme has resigned in frustration, 90% of the claimants have yet to receive compensation and nine have died while waiting.
IforB said:
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?
What? You mean the Home Secretary doesn't read about News, Politics and economics on a sub forum of a forum on a website about cars? Tell me it isn't so!
I asked if belittling insults and intellectual snobbery are appropriate in a discussion on bullying. You seem to believe it's ok if the person involved doesn't hear about them. OK, I imagine your workplace to be quite nasty then.
Red 4 said:
I was banned after highlighting Tuna's mental gymnastics when he said that Lockdown v2 was really all Labour's fault and, in particular, it was due to Andy Burnham doing something that he never actually did.
Tuna's mental gymnastics were an attempt at a double front flip but they resulted in him landing squarely on his face. However, it was a spectacular effort and some of his team mates rushed over to check he was OK but the crowd erupted into uncontrollable laughter anyway.
I didn't have an ongoing spat with anyone else at the point I was banned although I'm not ruling out the potential for someone else to have gone crying to the mods.
The Ultras have taken a bit of a bashing on here this year and clearly they don't like it.
As for "landing on your face" - I'd suggest that being banned is not exactly a highlight. I hope you can last longer in this thread.
Tuna said:
For the record, I have never spoken to the mods about you, nor asked anyone else to do so. You're really not that important.
.
+ 1 from me. I may think that you're a boorish and a rather unpleasant chap Redders with (ironically) a propensity to try to bully other posters, but that's just my view and I can assure you most sincerely that I have not reported you. .
I think reporting people really does have to be a last resort, and in over 19 years on PH I think I am correct in saying that I have only ever reported one poster who made a VERY offensive remark.
Whatever side of the debate we are on, running to the mods is something that should not be done lightly. There are a few posters on this thread that are regular reporters, and here again they are often the people who most often post trollish nonsense themselves.
andy_s said:
I'd agree, but you're a decent bloke who, if someone called you that, would quite rightly seek redress.
My 'benefit of doubt' comes from imagining you're not a decent bloke, but instead someone who is trying to subvert the business and gets on the wick of your boss who then snaps at you - you go in a huddle with your co-conspirators and decide to take it up higher as you see an opportunity to get rid of the boss, rather than any genuine feeling you've been 'picked on'.
All very Machiavellian I know, but indications in the same report point out it's not such an 'out there' scenario. Of course, I see other more straightforward scenarios as well, I've also described those.
This is the basis for my slight equivocation.
I'd like to think Cabinet and Mandarins operate in a modern professional workplace, however all the evidence points to it being thoroughly toxic, especially at the moment.
But Andy that's kind of my point here.My 'benefit of doubt' comes from imagining you're not a decent bloke, but instead someone who is trying to subvert the business and gets on the wick of your boss who then snaps at you - you go in a huddle with your co-conspirators and decide to take it up higher as you see an opportunity to get rid of the boss, rather than any genuine feeling you've been 'picked on'.
All very Machiavellian I know, but indications in the same report point out it's not such an 'out there' scenario. Of course, I see other more straightforward scenarios as well, I've also described those.
This is the basis for my slight equivocation.
I'd like to think Cabinet and Mandarins operate in a modern professional workplace, however all the evidence points to it being thoroughly toxic, especially at the moment.
I couldn't call you that on here because I'd get banned for it.
That's for one anonymous bloke on the internet calling another anonymous bloke on the internet an offensive name.
You're coming awfully close to saying it's OK for the Home Secretary to do so to a junior member of staff in a professional modern workplace if she thinks her junior staff are trying to annoy her on purpose with their behaviour.
When you can think extenuating circumstances when that's OK but don't seem able to flat-out say that Patel is a bully because of her behaviour and the independent report that states she used bullying behaviour I'm honestly struggling with what it would take.
It's like there's just some weird determination to find an excuse and that somehow they asked for it or somehow Patel must have been driven to it.
andymadmak said:
Tuna said:
For the record, I have never spoken to the mods about you, nor asked anyone else to do so. You're really not that important.
.
+ 1 from me. I may think that you're a boorish and a rather unpleasant chap Redders with (ironically) a propensity to try to bully other posters, but that's just my view and I can assure you most sincerely that I have not reported you. .
I think reporting people really does have to be a last resort, and in over 19 years on PH I think I am correct in saying that I have only ever reported one poster who made a VERY offensive remark.
Whatever side of the debate we are on, running to the mods is something that should not be done lightly. There are a few posters on this thread that are regular reporters, and here again they are often the people who most often post trollish nonsense themselves.
Reporting really should be a last resort. Leaving trollish posts and juveline name-calling on a thread can be a good thing as PHers get to see what the person posting infantile tripe is like.
Meanwhile this Boris chap, the one in the thread title, he's still PM apparently.
andy_s said:
My 'benefit of doubt' comes from imagining you're not a decent bloke, but instead someone who is trying to subvert the business and gets on the wick of your boss who then snaps at you - you go in a huddle with your co-conspirators and decide to take it up higher as you see an opportunity to get rid of the boss, rather than any genuine feeling you've been 'picked on'.
Does the report on Patel have any suggestion in it that this was going on?gizlaroc said:
IforB said:
markyb_lcy said:
Must admit it is quite funny seeing the moral juxtaposition of some users who yesterday were basically saying bullying in govt is fine if it gets things done or if people “deserve it” and now here accusing other users of bullying and on their moral high ground calling it out
Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
It’s Trumpian in nature.
It is always thus with people without a moral centre. They base everything on themselves because they are by definition self-absorbed on are only really interested in themselves. Wrong or right don't matter. It is only right when it is what they want and it is wrong when it is something they don't like.Basically reads as .. “it’s fine when our side does it, but it’s reprehensible when the other side does it”. (Also, it’s fine at the top of the governance of the country but terrible on an anonymous car forum).
It’s Trumpian in nature.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 23 November 12:57
This is why this thread is so appalling. You have people of all political persuasions ( I am not a Tory voter, others are) who display empathy and understanding. They have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. The fact that Johnson is a Tory, is irrelevant. People with an understanding of right and wrong are all saying this is wrong.
Then you have the rest. Those that blindly defend Johnson. They have no morality. If they did, they would join the rest of us in saying "this is wrong."
Political allegiance is irrelevant when it comes to morality. Most of us get that.
Corbyn and his clan were constantly having to deny widespread bullying across the party.
Look at the cheering from those in Labour when Berger and the others felt they needed to walk out.
The bullying was not even being hid.
That was great for those who vote tory, it gave them the ammo the needed to call out Labour and drag the party through the mud.
And what has happening now with Patel is no different, and those on the left will milk this for all it's worth, and rightly so.
But let's not get carried away, we are talking about one person rather than a huge chunk of the party, and rather than use it as a political weapon I would be far more impressed if those from all around used to to actually learn something going forward.
If it had just been Patel and she'd had the flick, then it would be "one person" but it is not. The issue for me, is the fact they are supporting the bully over the bullied. I have a major problem with that.
As for Labour, the whole Corbyn era was a terrible time and I note with dismay, that his supporters are still playing games. Like I have said before. right and wrong has no bearing on political allegiance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff