Saturday 21st & Sunday 22nd November 2020
Posted: Sat 21 Nov, 2020 8:06 am
Morning all.
Especially as the report to the PM saysRogerOThornhill wrote:Priti Patel was warned to treat staff with respect, says former official
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55015493" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Isn't that a little bit odd?Sir Philip Rutnam quit as permanent secretary at the Home Office in February, after complaining about Ms Patel's conduct, and is currently suing the government for unfair dismissal.
He said he was never asked to contribute to the bullying inquiry despite resigning over the matter.
In other words, there was clear evidence that feedback was given to the home secretary, which meant that she was clearly aware of issues she could have addressed, but the report didn't bother to look for the obvious and freely available evidence.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.
There's this old story as well.adam wrote:
In other words, there was clear evidence that feedback was given to the home secretary, which meant that she was clearly aware of issues she could have addressed, but the report didn't bother to look for the obvious and freely available evidence.
Allan's report was pretty soft imo and the idea that Johnson was leaning on him to make it softer still should be alarming, but instead is entirely predictable.A complaint was brought for unfair dismissal, harassment, victimisation and discrimination, but did not reach a tribunal because the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) settled the case for £25,000 in April 2017, without admission of liability,
Like all the best ideas it's so obvious when you see it.adam wrote:Also how did we miss this the other night?
[youtube]H3RGP2imSk0[/youtube]
Kevin Arscott
@uponnothing
I am very supportive of Dr Harold Shipman. He made many housecalls in my area and never once did I see him murder anyone and nor did he murder me.
Iain Duncan Smith MP
@MPIainDS
There are significant balancing requirements to make note of here, which were that senior civil servants did not do their jobs
@pritipatel didn't just erupt, there were problems that were forcing her to the point where she simply couldn't get the job done.
Were those words actually used?RogerOThornhill wrote:"They wouldn't do what I wanted and what my voters voted for, using the flimsy excuse that it simply wouldn't work...so I shouted and swore at them."
Isn't there a head of the Civil Service that she could have spoken to so that this could have been sorted out?
Only by me...AnatolyKasparov wrote:Were those words actually used?RogerOThornhill wrote:"They wouldn't do what I wanted and what my voters voted for, using the flimsy excuse that it simply wouldn't work...so I shouted and swore at them."
Isn't there a head of the Civil Service that she could have spoken to so that this could have been sorted out?
and when was this report on the PM's desk?Boris Johnson’s former adviser on ministerial standards was prevented from interviewing a key witness for his formal bullying inquiry into Priti Patel, an act that stopped him accessing the home secretary’s foremost accuser.
Legal and Whitehall sources have revealed that Sir Alex Allan sought to interview the former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam about his dealings with Patel, but was blocked by government officials.
Allan’s bullying inquiry was launched by the prime minister following the resignation of Rutnam over’s Patel’s alleged behaviour and he is suing the government for constructive dismissal. Sources say Allan was informed he could not interview Rutnam for his independent inquiry because of the legal action.
Allan, however, felt that his inquiry was being denied potentially crucial evidence. The inability of the prime minister’s former ethics adviser to question Rutnam also prompted a “spirited row” within the government’s legal department.
It has also emerged that Allan’s investigation was conducted far more quickly than previously reported and that it was on the prime minister’s desk as early as April. It means Johnson elected to sit on its damning findings for seven months until pressure grew so intense that he had no option but to make its findings public.
Officials ‘blocked access to witness’ in Priti Patel inquiry
Sir Alex Allan made repeated attempts to interview former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam, but was stymied
Boris Johnson’s former adviser on ministerial standards was prevented from interviewing a key witness for his formal bullying inquiry into Priti Patel.
Legal and Whitehall sources have revealed that Sir Alex Allan sought to interview the former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam about his dealings with Patel, but was blocked by government officials.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... el-inquiry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GoodMost of the public would rather have a locked-down Christmas than have a new lockdown imposed in January, a new poll suggests.
With the government considering the extent to which restrictions should be lifted to limit the impact on Christmas family gatherings, the latest Opinium poll for the Observer found that the public opted for a locked-down Christmas over new January restrictions by a margin of 54% to 33%.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... poll-finds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps- ... d=74320619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From a moral and from an ethical perspective it's obviously profoundly troubling and in many respects, we haven't seen anything like this in the modern era -- a sitting president, trying to basically subvert the election.” Daniel Weiner, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Election Reform Program told ABC News.
“But also it's troubling and concerning from a legal perspective, and folks who are taking part in these meetings should think long and hard about it. Offering, pressuring government officials to take official acts in exchange for benefits tangible or intangible is a federal crime,” Weiner added.
don't want to end up like Bonnie and ClydeAnatolyKasparov wrote:Good morning all, anything happening?
I like Daniel Weiner.tinyclanger2 wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps- ... d=74320619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From a moral and from an ethical perspective it's obviously profoundly troubling and in many respects, we haven't seen anything like this in the modern era -- a sitting president, trying to basically subvert the election.” Daniel Weiner, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Election Reform Program told ABC News.
“But also it's troubling and concerning from a legal perspective, and folks who are taking part in these meetings should think long and hard about it. Offering, pressuring government officials to take official acts in exchange for benefits tangible or intangible is a federal crime,” Weiner added.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nfiscationWindrush victim refused British citizenship despite wrongful passport confiscation
Former English teacher Ken Morgan’s passport was confiscated as he travelled back from a funeral in Jamaica in 1994
A former English teacher who was blocked for 25 years from returning to his home in Britain after his passport was wrongly confiscated has been ruled ineligible for British citizenship due to the length of his absence from the UK. (Guardian)
I hate it when that happenstinyclanger2 wrote:like frogs
right, I had to read this article a couple times because I didn't want to believe the overt venalityBoris Johnson is facing a significant challenge to his plan to replace the current lockdown in England with a stricter three-tiered system of Covid restrictions, with 70 Conservative MPs saying they would not back the new regime without first seeing a cost-benefit analysis.
In a letter to the prime minister illustrating the scale of unrest among Tory ranks, MPs from the newly formed Covid Recovery Group said the government must prove the new restrictions “will save more lives than they cost”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... r-lockdown" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Many of the same MPs would resolutely keep their eyes shut if presented with a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit.citizenJA wrote:70 Conservative MPs saying they would not back the new regime without first seeing a cost-benefit analysis.
There is in fact, surely utterly unsurprisingly, a considerable overlap between this "new" group and the ERG.gilsey wrote:Many of the same MPs would resolutely keep their eyes shut if presented with a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit.citizenJA wrote:70 Conservative MPs saying they would not back the new regime without first seeing a cost-benefit analysis.
And if the Tories lost an election they'd be the first to question the result and file spurious litigation.gilsey wrote:Many of the same MPs would resolutely keep their eyes shut if presented with a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit.