Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 6)

[Unknown_User]

Even Johnson freely admits there is no place for bullying within his dysfunctional government.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics...

Well said Boris. I just hope his message gets through to all his MPs and supporters!

[markyb_lcy]

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.

ETA, another four requests to change my password this morning btw, though I’m not putting that down to any particular poster.

I think you quoted your post here instead of editing it.

I do hope you’re not accusing me of anything.

[anonymous-user]

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.

I think the point he’s making is that all your posts are about other posters rather than the topic.

Everyone knows I’ve told you to shut up and called you and idiot because you’re weirdly posting about it all over the forum popping up wherever I post. Stop being such an old man crybaby and instead of stalking me (or other posters) comment on Boris or events associated with him.

[IforB]

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?

Awww Tunes. Do you really think Patel reads this thread? Do you think she is going to be upset by what I have said and be impressed by the way you have leapt to her defence? Do you think she might invite you for dinner for your staunch support of her and Johnson?

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!

[gooner1]

markyb_lcy said:

I think you quoted your post here instead of editing it.

I do hope you’re not accusing me of anything.

Do wat mate?

Would you mind answering the question I posted instead of getting needlessly defensive when no such accusation has been proffered? Where did you manage to draw that conclusion, especially as you know by now that I say what I think.?

[andy_s]

bhstewie said:

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.

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

Perhaps it's a reaction to people making out as if she had been stamping on peoples faces...it just doesn't sit right to be so absolute, at least when we only know a limited amount of what is going on in reality and choose to ignore the probable dynamics. [Which could go either way].

A fruitless endeavour no doubt, a little Spockian perhaps, but I'm arguing more for the principals than the Priti Patels.

[IforB]

Well, this new thread is going exactly as expected, now all the people banned from the last one have made it back into this new one!

[markyb_lcy]

gooner1 said:

markyb_lcy said:

I think you quoted your post here instead of editing it.

I do hope you’re not accusing me of anything.

Do wat mate?

Would you mind answering the question I posted instead of getting needlessly defensive when no such accusation has been proffered? Where did you manage to draw that conclusion, especially as you know by now that I say what I think.?

I answered it, shortly after the first iteration of you asking it. Scroll back.

I’m not being remotely defensive. You made an assertion about a particular unnamed user in a reply directly to me. That suggests you’re accusing me without naming me. If you’re not, then a simple “I’m not” would suffice.

[Garvin]

Yes, it is going as expected. Especially those posters up in arms about Patel’s bullying and posting in a way that is tantamount to bullying other posters who do not share their opinion!

[bitchstewie]

andy_s said:

Perhaps it's a reaction to people making out as if she had been stamping on peoples faces...it just doesn't sit right to be so absolute, at least when we only know a limited amount of what is going on in reality and choose to ignore the probable dynamics. [Which could go either way].

A fruitless endeavour no doubt, a little Spockian perhaps, but I'm arguing more for the principals than the Priti Patels.

Do you think Alex Allan had access to that information?

It's easy to think I'm trying to change your mind on this when I'm not as I suspect I can't but I really don't get this whole thing where the Prime Minister appoints an independent advisor on ministerial standards who having seen and heard whatever evidence was available concluded her behaviour was bullying but he got it wrong.

What's the thing that you think he missed?

Like actual facts rather than some hunch that the Civil Servants on the receiving end probably deserved the abuse?

Honestly Andy you're on the right side of this in thinking she should go but it's just weird seeing you and some others trying to paint her in a more favorable light than the bully she's been shown to be.

[Red 4]

IforB said:

Well, this new thread is going exactly as expected, now all the people banned from the last one have made it back into this new one!

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.

[andy_s]

bhstewie said:

andy_s said:

Perhaps it's a reaction to people making out as if she had been stamping on peoples faces...it just doesn't sit right to be so absolute, at least when we only know a limited amount of what is going on in reality and choose to ignore the probable dynamics. [Which could go either way].

A fruitless endeavour no doubt, a little Spockian perhaps, but I'm arguing more for the principals than the Priti Patels.

Do you think Alex Allan had access to that information?

I think it's easy to think I'm trying to change your mind on this when I'm not as I suspect I can't but I really don't get this whole thing where the Prime Minister appoints an independent advisor on ministerial standards who having seen and heard whatever evidence he was available concluded her behaviour was bullying but he got it wrong.

What's the thing that you think he missed that you think you know?

Like actual facts rather than some hunch that the Civil Servants on the receiving end probably deserved the abuse?

Honestly Andy it's just weird.

I think Allan applied the Code - I think he took what people said, mapped it onto the definition and came to the inevitable conclusion that it was 'bullying' as per that code. He also mention the recalcitrance of the CS as well, several times.

His resignation and Boris not releasing the full report makes me think that some deeply unpleasant things were said that Boris wants to hide, as if the reaction on that presumption isn't bad enough anyway.

If we learn that people abused the code as a way to maneuver politically, I'll err to Patel. If we find out she was deliberately picking on people 'just cos', then I'll agree. At the moment I just think she's been Billy Big bks in the face of being undermined. In the middle of a crisis at the heart of a massive transition with more st coming down the pipe, no parties are looking particularly as if they have the interests of country at heart tbh.

[bitchstewie]

andy_s said:

I think Allan applied the Code - I think he took what people said, mapped it onto the definition and came to the inevitable conclusion that it was 'bullying' as per that code. He also mention the recalcitrance of the CS as well, several times.

His resignation and Boris not releasing the full report makes me think that some deeply unpleasant things were said that Boris wants to hide, as if the reaction on that presumption isn't bad enough anyway.

If we learn that people abused the code as a way to maneuver politically, I'll err to Patel. If we find out she was deliberately picking on people 'just cos', then I'll agree. At the moment I just think she's been Billy Big bks in the face of being undermined. In the middle of a crisis at the heart of a massive transition with more st coming down the pipe, no parties are looking particularly as if they have the interests of country at heart tbh.

The code is what ministers agree to abide by so I'm not sure what else he could have applied.

Agree entirely on the idea that whatever is in the report that means Johnson sat on it for so long almost certainly doesn't make for pleasant reading.

I'm genuinely not sure the part I've bolded means.

Do you mean if they somehow maneuvered Patel into abusing them?

[andy_s]

bhstewie said:

andy_s said:

I think Allan applied the Code - I think he took what people said, mapped it onto the definition and came to the inevitable conclusion that it was 'bullying' as per that code. He also mention the recalcitrance of the CS as well, several times.

His resignation and Boris not releasing the full report makes me think that some deeply unpleasant things were said that Boris wants to hide, as if the reaction on that presumption isn't bad enough anyway.

If we learn that people abused the code as a way to maneuver politically, I'll err to Patel. If we find out she was deliberately picking on people 'just cos', then I'll agree. At the moment I just think she's been Billy Big bks in the face of being undermined. In the middle of a crisis at the heart of a massive transition with more st coming down the pipe, no parties are looking particularly as if they have the interests of country at heart tbh.

The code is what ministers agree to abide by so I'm not sure what else he could have applied.

Agree entirely on the idea that whatever is in the report that means Johnson sat on it for so long almost certainly doesn't make for pleasant reading.

I'm genuinely not sure the part I've bolded means.

Do you mean if they somehow maneuvered Patel into abusing them?

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.

[IforB]

Garvin said:

Yes, it is going as expected. Especially those posters up in arms about Patel’s bullying and posting in a way that is tantamount to bullying other posters who do not share their opinion!

This post absolutely make me smile.

To know that those who have spent months (if not years - I haven't been posting on N,P&E that long myself) being abjectly vile to so many and quite literally driving people off the forum by the consistent and very personal attacks are now reduced to crying foul at tone, because they know that any rational argument has been lost, is very interesting to see.

It is the last vestige of the scurrilous, to point to others and say "but, but, but he's now doing what I did to him and I don't like it. What a horrible person."

As I have said many times before, this thread is a toxic and vile miasma of disrespect. Everybody has their part to play in that and everybody is choosing to be here and interact. We are all peers here, no-one (other than the mods) have any power over anyone else.

The fact is, is that right now. The game is up. Johnson has been exposed time and time again as being hopeless. There is no real defence left, yet still the valiant defenders of incompetence and immorality drag themselves in and do their best to defend a man who doesn't know or care that they exist.

Reality is starting to dawn on many and I have to say, the arguments defending Johnson are becoming so lack-lustre, it is as if it is just an unconscious reaction. The ammo is running out, all they have left is belief, it is as if you are trying to use bayonets in the last-ditch, last-gasp defence, but the problem with that, is that bringing a knife to a gunfight is always a losing strategy.

Johnson has let you down. I get it. I know why you are angry, you feel used, you feel useless, you feel abandoned. A futile defence is not glorious, it is just a route to oblivion. We see it here.

However, defending the indefensible indelibly marks you out. Forever more, you will be known as the people who defended Johnson when he condoned bullying.
You defended Johnson when he refused to feed hungry children.
You defended Johnson when he defended Cummings and you defended him again when he sacked him.
You have defended corruption.
You have defended lies.
You have defended incompetence that has lead to thousands of our fellow citizens dying.
You have defended policies that are destroying our economy.

Add that up and that does not leave any of the defenders coming out of this last ditch defence with any honour.

Be careful who you support, their failure will become yours too.

Edited by IforB on Monday 23 November 13:01

[bitchstewie]

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.

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.

[IforB]

andy_s said:

bhstewie said:

andy_s said:

I think Allan applied the Code - I think he took what people said, mapped it onto the definition and came to the inevitable conclusion that it was 'bullying' as per that code. He also mention the recalcitrance of the CS as well, several times.

His resignation and Boris not releasing the full report makes me think that some deeply unpleasant things were said that Boris wants to hide, as if the reaction on that presumption isn't bad enough anyway.

If we learn that people abused the code as a way to maneuver politically, I'll err to Patel. If we find out she was deliberately picking on people 'just cos', then I'll agree. At the moment I just think she's been Billy Big bks in the face of being undermined. In the middle of a crisis at the heart of a massive transition with more st coming down the pipe, no parties are looking particularly as if they have the interests of country at heart tbh.

The code is what ministers agree to abide by so I'm not sure what else he could have applied.

Agree entirely on the idea that whatever is in the report that means Johnson sat on it for so long almost certainly doesn't make for pleasant reading.

I'm genuinely not sure the part I've bolded means.

Do you mean if they somehow maneuvered Patel into abusing them?

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.

The only thing we need to know and the only thing we will be told, is that Patel broke the code. She was found guilty by those with the information of bullying.

Exactly what she did will remain a mystery to us, unless a tribunal or court case releases information (or someone leaks it). I would suspect, that the actions of Johnson in ignoring the conclusions of the report, will indeed lead to action being taken. I know that if I was one of the people who had made the complaint, then had it upheld and then it was over-ruled, then the solicitors would already be moving.

I very much doubt that this will be the end of it.

[markyb_lcy]

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.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 23 November 12:57

[Unknown_User]

The independent report says Priti is a bully.
Johnson says Priti is a bully but her bullying is unintentional.
Priti has historical accusations of bullying against her that have resulted in cash payouts awarded against her.

And yet the Ultra's refuse to accept she is a bully.

ETA - With regards to discussing Boris' lack of action over/and Priti's bullying, I find it similar to trying to sensibly discuss flat-earther's or anti-vaxxers concerns and beliefs.

Edited by Unknown_User on Monday 23 November 13:07

[bitchstewie]

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'd be interested if anyone who thinks Patel shouldn't resign or be sacked believes Corbyn is fit to be a member of the Labour Party and a Labour MP after what happened on his watch as leader.