Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 6)

[Scrump]

Continued from here:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[ThumperMc]

First

[IforB]

gizlaroc said:

Bullying?

From everything said it seems more like she lost her rag with people who constantly didn't do what they were meant to be doing and let them know.

If that sort of thing upsets you then don't get a job in one of the highest offices there is in the land, or do what you are there to do.


Some of them should spend an evening in a kitchen, or try being an assistant coach for a team for a weekend, maybe go on some army training?

Maybe I have missed something? But I have been trying to see what she did that was real bullying, I think we have an issue where people getting reprimanded for not performing is now classed as bullying, which is a shame as it dilutes real bullying.
Some people just are not suited for working in high pressure workplaces.



Now, having said all that. I do think that some people just have no empathy and have a nasty way about them, and when they do all the above it comes across as someone who is just being really nasty. Patel strikes me as someone who can't really cope with the pressures that come with the job either, and is like some nut case on the edge constantly, so when she shouts it comes across in a very different way to someone that you work with and respect.

She is like the tory version of Thornberry, one of those women who smiles as she is being a complete and utter . Neither are someone I would want to spend any time with, let alone work with them.

For me, people like that add nothing to what you are trying to achieve, in any workplace.

Bullying is quite simply unacceptable. I don't care if you are in the military, a kitchen run by some macho, moronic Ramsay wannabee or in Government. There is no excuse. There certainly isn't any excuse in any form of sports coaching either.

If you cannot manage people without bullying them, then you cannot manage. It is that simple. Anyone who has to resort to yelling, belittling or other forms of bad behaviour to get what they want, is utterly hopeless and has no business managing staff, let alone being Home Secretary.

She has been found to have breached the rules, not just this time, but also in the past, where we tax payers have had to pick significant bills for payments to staff she has bullied.

She is a bully. Simple as that.

[gizlaroc]

I can't quote people as the topic has closed and moved onto Vol. 6.


Maybe I am not getting over what I am trying to say very well.


Who decides what is bullying?

My son, who is autistic, was bullied by his teacher the year before last, year before going to High School. It wasn't the shouting, it was the constant put downs, sending him out when he asked if she could repeat what she had said as he really struggles to take info in when in a large classroom with lots going on, and her then taking the mickey out of him in front of the whole class which made hime feel "like an idiot" in front of his peers.
Luckily they put an assistant in there, watched her and realised there was a real problem, she was properly bullying some of the class, and she was let go.
Turns out she was having a breakdown after a really messy divorce. She was a nasty bh that should not have been working with 9 year old kids.

I find bullying of any sort horrific.


Have I been unnecessarily rude, shouty, abrupt etc. with my staff over the last 20 years?
Yeah, on times I have, and when I look back to when that was it was normally in periods where I had issues going on that have affected my tolerance to stress.
But I have had good staff who know me, and also had staff who can tell me to do one if I am being a tit.

I have worked with people who are very shouty when things go wrong, when things are not done, but there is a massive difference between someone who is like that all the time and someone who is like that when things are really not right.
One I have no issue with the other I just think "WTF are you doing in this position?"


Let me get it straight, I am not backing Patel, I think she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be in the cabinet, I think she is someone that makes her staff feel bad rather than good, and that in itself would be enough to say she should not be there.
I'm just not sure what I have read so far is bullying. You say belittling others, that was what I was trying to find, but it just seems to me she is a too highly stressed for that position and everyone around her suffers because of it.
But that maybe just me not thinking what I have read is actually bullying, I think bullying is one of the nastiest forms of abuse, I have seen my son and a couple of very close friends go through true bullying and not sure what I have see so far is that?
But it in no way me making any excuses for her, I think she should go.

[bitchstewie]

gizlaroc said:

I can't quote people as the topic has closed and moved onto Vol. 6.


Maybe I am not getting over what I am trying to say very well.


Who decides what is bullying?

My son, who is autistic, was bullied by his teacher the year before last, year before going to High School. It wasn't the shouting, it was the constant put downs, sending him out when he asked if she could repeat what she had said as he really struggles to take info in when in a large classroom with lots going on, and her then taking the mickey out of him in front of the whole class which made hime feel "like an idiot" in front of his peers.
Luckily they put an assistant in there, watched her and realised there was a real problem, she was properly bullying some of the class, and she was let go.
Turns out she was having a breakdown after a really messy divorce. She was a nasty bh that should not have been working with 9 year old kids.

I find bullying of any sort horrific.


Have I been unnecessarily rude, shouty, abrupt etc. with my staff over the last 20 years?
Yeah, on times I have, and when I look back to when that was it was normally in periods where I had issues going on that have affected my tolerance to stress.
But I have had good staff who know me, and also had staff who can tell me to do one if I am being a tit.

I have worked with people who are very shouty when things go wrong, when things are not done, but there is a massive difference between someone who is like that all the time and someone who is like that when things are really not right.
One I have no issue with the other I just think "WTF are you doing in this position?"


Let me get it straight, I am not backing Patel, I think she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be in the cabinet, I think she is someone that makes her staff feel bad rather than good, and that in itself would be enough to say she should not be there.
I'm just not sure what I have read so far is bullying. You say belittling others, that was what I was trying to find, but it just seems to me she is a too highly stressed for that position and everyone around her suffers because of it.
But that maybe just me not thinking what I have read is actually bullying, I think bullying is one of the nastiest forms of abuse, I have seen my son and a couple of very close friends go through true bullying and not sure what I have see so far is that?
But it in no way me making any excuses for her, I think she should go.

Thanks and that sounds more nuanced

I'm very sorry to hear about what happened to your son and I think my humble question there would be what would you think if someone said "well that isn't really what I'd consider bullying" to you?

Do your staff know that they can tell you to do one or do you think that maybe even if you're not aware of it they may watch their tone because in the back of their mind you're still the guy that pays their bills?

I'm not asking those as trick questions I think you've been very candid and I think most people know the line when they see it even if it's sometimes hard to describe it.

You've also been very clear that Patel shouldn't be in the cabinet.

I do honestly struggle a bit when my perception is that the people who do back Patel all claim to find bullying vile and unacceptable but then appear to move the definition of bullying to something that means Patel wasn't a bully.

Maybe I haven't got that over very well either.

[IforB]

gizlaroc said:

I can't quote people as the topic has closed and moved onto Vol. 6.


Maybe I am not getting over what I am trying to say very well.


Who decides what is bullying?

My son, who is autistic, was bullied by his teacher the year before last, year before going to High School. It wasn't the shouting, it was the constant put downs, sending him out when he asked if she could repeat what she had said as he really struggles to take info in when in a large classroom with lots going on, and her then taking the mickey out of him in front of the whole class which made hime feel "like an idiot" in front of his peers.
Luckily they put an assistant in there, watched her and realised there was a real problem, she was properly bullying some of the class, and she was let go.
Turns out she was having a breakdown after a really messy divorce. She was a nasty bh that should not have been working with 9 year old kids.

I find bullying of any sort horrific.


Have I been unnecessarily rude, shouty, abrupt etc. with my staff over the last 20 years?
Yeah, on times I have, and when I look back to when that was it was normally in periods where I had issues going on that have affected my tolerance to stress.
But I have had good staff who know me, and also had staff who can tell me to do one if I am being a tit.

I have worked with people who are very shouty when things go wrong, when things are not done, but there is a massive difference between someone who is like that all the time and someone who is like that when things are really not right.
One I have no issue with the other I just think "WTF are you doing in this position?"


Let me get it straight, I am not backing Patel, I think she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be in the cabinet, I think she is someone that makes her staff feel bad rather than good, and that in itself would be enough to say she should not be there.
I'm just not sure what I have read so far is bullying. You say belittling others, that was what I was trying to find, but it just seems to me she is a too highly stressed for that position and everyone around her suffers because of it.
But that maybe just me not thinking what I have read is actually bullying, I think bullying is one of the nastiest forms of abuse, I have seen my son and a couple of very close friends go through true bullying and not sure what I have see so far is that?
But it in no way me making any excuses for her, I think she should go.

Why don't we just let the report that Johnson is ignoring give the answer.

"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."

I am very sorry to hear about your son and his friends go through bullying. However, I would hope that would give you the perspective to see why Patel's behaviour and Johnson's willingness to condone and excuse it are completely unacceptable.

Edited by IforB on Monday 23 November 10:34

[Unknown_User]

gizlaroc said:

I can't quote people as the topic has closed and moved onto Vol. 6.


Maybe I am not getting over what I am trying to say very well.


Who decides what is bullying?

My son, who is autistic, was bullied by his teacher the year before last, year before going to High School. It wasn't the shouting, it was the constant put downs, sending him out when he asked if she could repeat what she had said as he really struggles to take info in when in a large classroom with lots going on, and her then taking the mickey out of him in front of the whole class which made hime feel "like an idiot" in front of his peers.
Luckily they put an assistant in there, watched her and realised there was a real problem, she was properly bullying some of the class, and she was let go.
Turns out she was having a breakdown after a really messy divorce. She was a nasty bh that should not have been working with 9 year old kids.

I find bullying of any sort horrific.


Have I been unnecessarily rude, shouty, abrupt etc. with my staff over the last 20 years?
Yeah, on times I have, and when I look back to when that was it was normally in periods where I had issues going on that have affected my tolerance to stress.
But I have had good staff who know me, and also had staff who can tell me to do one if I am being a tit.

I have worked with people who are very shouty when things go wrong, when things are not done, but there is a massive difference between someone who is like that all the time and someone who is like that when things are really not right.
One I have no issue with the other I just think "WTF are you doing in this position?"


Let me get it straight, I am not backing Patel, I think she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be in the cabinet, I think she is someone that makes her staff feel bad rather than good, and that in itself would be enough to say she should not be there.
I'm just not sure what I have read so far is bullying. You say belittling others, that was what I was trying to find, but it just seems to me she is a too highly stressed for that position and everyone around her suffers because of it.
But that maybe just me not thinking what I have read is actually bullying, I think bullying is one of the nastiest forms of abuse, I have seen my son and a couple of very close friends go through true bullying and not sure what I have see so far is that?
But it in no way me making any excuses for her, I think she should go.

I'm truly sorry to hear about your son and I hope he is able to put that terrible episode behind him.

The independent report found that Priti Patel bullied civil folk in the workplace. This was pointed out to you on Vol 5, I don't understand why you fail to comprehend this?

As I stated in my response to your last post on this subject, Prime Minister Johnson said the bullying wasn't intentional. He did not say there wasn't any bullying. Therefore Johnson agrees there was bullying. Unless you have clear evidence that the independent report didn't have, then we should take the independent report and its findings as accurate.

Bullying in the workplace is completely unacceptable.

[gizlaroc]

bhstewie said:

Do your staff know that they can tell you to do one or do you think that maybe even if you're not aware of it they may watch their tone because in the back of their mind you're still the guy that pays their bills?

I'm not asking those as trick questions I think you've been very candid and I think most people know the line when they see it even if it's sometimes hard to describe it.

No they know.

I have always said that they can be quite candid with me, I would much prefer that. But also, I always say that any......what do I call it? Any.....frustrations, must always be sorted before we leave, even if we agree to disagree, I don't want anyone, or myself, to go home with tension in the air.

Of course that can't always work, but I think if you try and at least leave for the night or the weekend knowing that it is simply a workplace disagreement and nothing more it is better for everyone's well being.

I should say, luckily it is a very rare thing. We sell clothes. haha

But seriously, the biggest rows are normally about holidays etc. People booking a holiday before getting time allocated, knowing someone else is already off etc.

Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 23 November 10:36

[anonymous-user]

Unknown_User said:

The independent report found that Priti Patel bullied civil folk in the workplace. This was pointed out to you on Vol 5, I don't understand why you fail to comprehend this?

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.

[andy_s]

bhstewie said:

I do honestly struggle a bit when my perception is that the people who do back Patel all claim to find bullying vile and unacceptable but then appear to move the definition of bullying to something that means Patel wasn't a bully..

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.

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

[bitchstewie]

gizlaroc said:

No they know.

I have always said that they can be quite candid with me, I would much prefer that. But also, I always say that any......what do I call it? Any.....frustrations, must always be sorted before we leave, even if we agree to disagree, I don't want anyone, or myself, to go home with tension in the air.

Of course that can't always work, but I think if you try and at least leave for the night or the weekend knowing that it is simply a workplace disagreement and nothing more it is better for everyone's well being.

I should say, luckily it is a very rare thing. We sell clothes. haha

But seriously, the biggest rows are normally about holidays etc. People booking a holiday before getting time allocated, knowing someone else is already off etc.

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?

[Unknown_User]

andy_s said:

bhstewie said:

I do honestly struggle a bit when my perception is that the people who do back Patel all claim to find bullying vile and unacceptable but then appear to move the definition of bullying to something that means Patel wasn't a bully..

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.

Johnson said "the bullying was unintentional", he didn't say there was no bullying.

Ask yourself, should Cabinet Ministers lead by example and by the highest standards?

[anonymous-user]

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.

No that’s what Boris said.

[gizlaroc]

IforB said:

Why don't we just let the report that Johnson is ignoring give the answer.

"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."

I am very sorry to hear about your son and his friends go through bullying. However, I would hope that would give you the perspective to see why Patel's behaviour and Johnson's willingness to condone and excuse it are completely unacceptable.

Cheers.

Yeah it does.
I think Johnson has fked up big time since we came out of the first lockdown.

Cummings, Patel, closing down the country again, a balls up from start to finish.



Second lockdown, immediate effect, starting Thursday!
Seriously?

It was like Xmas Eve round here on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
We didn't close till nearly 9pm Wednesday, constant steady stream of customers, plus we are 3000 square foot and never have more than a couple of customers in at any one time. However...the pubs were rammed, same with our snooker club.
Turns out those going between the two had covid, so we went from around 80 per 100k the week before lockdown and one of the lowest wards in the UK to 741 per 100k the week after and one of the highest.

A combination of being in an area where no one thought it an issue with being told "You have 3 days before lockdown" was imho asking for trouble.

We would have been far better to have had no lockdown at all.

Same with relaxing restrictions over Xmas. It will just see people go silly and a spike. If we have another lockdown after xmas it will be the end of so many smaller businesses. We will see unemployment at a level we have never seen before.

Most retailers I know have borrowed to get through these lockdowns, they have taken on debt for 10 years. Many are in their 50s and are saying borrowing more is pointless, they will be 75 by the time it is paid off.
Losing £15k a year for 10 years is one thing, loosing £15k a year for 20 years or losing £30k a year for 10 years is just not worth it.
And that is where we are at.

So as far as I am concerned the tories have screwed up big time.

[don'tbesilly]

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.

No that’s what Boris said.

No that's what the report said:

'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.'

[Tuna]

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. 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.

[bitchstewie]

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.

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?

[andy_s]

Unknown_User said:

andy_s said:

bhstewie said:

I do honestly struggle a bit when my perception is that the people who do back Patel all claim to find bullying vile and unacceptable but then appear to move the definition of bullying to something that means Patel wasn't a bully..

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.

Johnson said "the bullying was unintentional", he didn't say there was no bullying.

Ask yourself, should Cabinet Ministers lead by example and by the highest standards?

Again, I'm just going from what my perception of what a bully is against what it could be as per the code.

I think cabinet ministers should have more sense/acumen than to strut around shouting at people, yes, of course. I just have a vision of Patel now dripping with sarcastic warmth now though...

[Tuna]

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 may be just me, but this kind of very personal attack, laced with intellectual snobbery, sits rather uncomfortably in a discussion about bullying.