Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 6)

[andy_s]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

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?

Report: said:

“The Ministerial Code says “Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect.” I believe Civil Servants – particularly Senior Civil Servants – should be expected to handle robust criticism but should not have to face behaviour that goes beyond that. The Home Secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action orientated and can be direct. The Home Secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID three years ago. The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals.

“The Ministerial Code says that “Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code…”. Definitions of harassment concern comments or actions relating to personal characteristics and there is no evidence from the Cabinet Office’s work of any such behaviour by the Home Secretary. 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.

“The Civil Service itself needs to reflect on its role during this period. The Home Office was not as flexible as it could have been in responding to the Home Secretary’s requests and direction. She has – legitimately – not always felt supported by the department. In addition, no feedback was given to the Home Secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed.
“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. This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her."

Indications highlighted that wouldn't make it a completely flat-earth scenario. It may of course be nothing like that, but that's sort of my point, it may largely depend on interpretation until we know more. Maybe I watch things too cynically.

[anonymous-user]

Are there any examples of 'lack of support' given?

[andy_s]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Are there any examples of 'lack of support' given?

Not that I can see - that's the only 'official' text released so far.

[Red 4]

Tuna said:

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.

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.

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.

That's a shame. I was hoping for yet another wall of text to explain your exploits and reasoning.

I don't think anyone is important on PH btw. I had a nice sabbatical in any case, popping in occasionally to see what was what but not much has changed - apart from more shenanigans from Boris and Co, obviously.
It seems not a week goes by without yet another disaster or scandal rearing its ugly head.
I can't remember another PM in living history who was such a monumental disaster as DePfeffel.
He's sure to go down in the history books for all the wrong reasons.

[IforB]

Tuna said:

IforB said:

This in't just "one person" though. This is the leader of the party, one of their most senior ministers and then the entire cabinet (and much of the parliamentary party) coming out and saying bullying is OK.

Of course that isn't what they're saying. But you know that.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying by supporting the bully and excusing her behaviour whilst utterly ignoring those that have been bullied.

[turbobloke]

IforB said:

Tuna said:

IforB said:

This in't just "one person" though. This is the leader of the party, one of their most senior ministers and then the entire cabinet (and much of the parliamentary party) coming out and saying bullying is OK.

Of course that isn't what they're saying. But you know that.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying by supporting the bully and excusing her behaviour whilst utterly ignoring those that have been bullied.

No, it exactly isn't.

Panto season?

[Crackie]

turbobloke said:

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.

+1 again.

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.

+1 again. I've been a member for 17 years, have only ever had one user name during that time, and have never reported anyone.

Yes, this Boris chap, the one in the thread title, he's still PM apparently.

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

IforB said:

This in't just "one person" though. This is the leader of the party, one of their most senior ministers and then the entire cabinet (and much of the parliamentary party) coming out and saying bullying is OK.

Of course that isn't what they're saying. But you know that.

The leader of the party and the cabinet (those who have expressed a view so far) are saying that some level of bullying is considered acceptable to the extent that it's not bad enough to warrant you losing your job.

I'd hope we'd both agree on that.

[anonymous-user]

Looks like some good news about reducing lockdowns for sports clubs etc

[IforB]

turbobloke said:

IforB said:

Tuna said:

IforB said:

This in't just "one person" though. This is the leader of the party, one of their most senior ministers and then the entire cabinet (and much of the parliamentary party) coming out and saying bullying is OK.

Of course that isn't what they're saying. But you know that.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying by supporting the bully and excusing her behaviour whilst utterly ignoring those that have been bullied.

No, it exactly isn't.

Panto season?

Not this year. Though I have to say, every time I see Johnson, he reminds me of panto dame for some reason.

P.S They are you know.

[bitchstewie]

This seems to have gone down well.

Boris Johnson under fire over ‘no place for bullying’ claim

I do genuinely wonder if it's pathological with Johnson as the words and actions are simply so disjointed.

[markyb_lcy]

bhstewie said:

This seems to have gone down well.

Boris Johnson under fire over ‘no place for bullying’ claim

I do genuinely wonder if it's pathological with Johnson as the words and actions are simply so disjointed.

1984 said:

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

[bitchstewie]

markyb_lcy said:

1984 said:

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

I do wonder how Johnson inspires such blind devotion..

Johnson said:

I am clear that there is a particular duty on ministers and permanent secretaries to create jointly across government a culture which is professional, respectful, focused and ambitious for change and in which there is no place for bullying.

But if you're found to be a bully and you apologise for being a bully there will be a place for you as Home Secretary.

What the actual fk

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

But if you're found to be a bully and you apologise for being a bully there will be a place for you as Home Secretary.

What the actual fk

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a belief that the issue has been addressed amongst all concerned?

Report said:

This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her."

[IforB]

markyb_lcy said:

bhstewie said:

This seems to have gone down well.

Boris Johnson under fire over ‘no place for bullying’ claim

I do genuinely wonder if it's pathological with Johnson as the words and actions are simply so disjointed.

1984 said:

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Sometimes I wonder if 1984 has been used as an instruction manual rather than it's original purpose as a warning.

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

bhstewie said:

But if you're found to be a bully and you apologise for being a bully there will be a place for you as Home Secretary.

What the actual fk

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a belief that the issue has been addressed amongst all concerned?

Report said:

This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her."

Johnson's words are that "there is no place for bullying".

Johnson's actions are that Patel is still Home Secretary.

That kind of suggests there is still a place for bullying in Johnson's Government Tuna.

I can't work out why anyone would feel so compelled to defend her remaining in post.

[citizensm1th]

bhstewie said:

Johnson's words are that "there is no place for bullying".

Johnson's actions are that Patel is still Home Secretary.

That kind of suggests there is still a place for bullying in Johnson's Government Tuna.

I can't work out why anyone would feel so compelled to defend that sort of behaviour.

I think we all know why the contrarian Tuna acts the way he does. Yet people continue to interact and enable him.

[IforB]

Tuna said:

bhstewie said:

But if you're found to be a bully and you apologise for being a bully there will be a place for you as Home Secretary.

What the actual fk

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a belief that the issue has been addressed amongst all concerned?

Report said:

This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her."

Her long history as a bully would suggest that this is not an isolated incident, nor were they allowed access to people who could have provided longer term context.

Leopards and spots.

[anonymous-user]

Conservatives ahead again, possibly after the Corbyn stuff last week leading to labour fall in the polls? It’ll be interesting if Conservative problems with Patel affect the numbers next week.



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-repo...

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

Johnson's words are that "there is no place for bullying".

Johnson's actions are that Patel is still Home Secretary.

That kind of suggests there is still a place for bullying in Johnson's Government Tuna.

Oh give over. Someone is accused of bullying, then nine months after the event when a report says explicitly they've changed their behaviour in response, you insist the only possible outcome is for them to be fired?

I get that you want the world to be black and white, but surely you can see that there are other possible outcomes that don't involve acceptance of bullying, either implicit or explicit?