Patel Bullying affair.

[PeanutButter]

3 hours ago, Will! said:

Private Eye said Sir Philip Rutnam was serially useless.

 

He's not.

But even if he was it would not justify her stinking behaviour. 

 

 

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

He's not.

But even if he was it would not justify her stinking behaviour. 

 

 

Vile woman.

[PeanutButter]

1 hour ago, satsuma said:

Unfortunately this type of behavior is largely acceptable in business and public life.  The problem is if you give a certain type of person power they will use it to feed their own ego.  Very sad and worse that in certain situations it can’t be called out.

It exists but it shouldn't be acceptable.

In private business she would have suffered the consequences of costing the company money. Instead, Rutnam has graciously accepted less than he would have received had he taken it all the way. Yes, it's cost the taxpayer, but hopefully it's shown that people can speak for themselves in these situations. 

I also maintain that Johnson has slept with her. No basis for that other than my intense dislike for both of them.  

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by PeanutButter

[nothernsoul]

I know nothing about philip ruttmans behaviour. He might be thoroughly decent for all I know. But from experience/observation, often the  only time the nasty, sneaky, self serving and immoral are brought to account is when they make the mistake of picking on those with the same traits. Mostly they avoid this, but it sometimes happens. 

 

[slawek]

40 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

I just don't get it. I grew up thinking that our politics was different and had at least a semblance of accountability and dignity. How has all that gone out the window so quickly? And the masses absolutely love this government for it. What am I missing, why are so few of us actually concerned by all this? 

The British politics was never much better than other countries. You just believed in a fairytale you were told in schools and by MSM. Most people are mostly interested in getting what they want, means are secondary and they are quite happy to look other way.      

[spyguy]

2 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

The Point is, an official enquiry found patel guilty of bullying allegations. Even if what happened was more shades of grey, the PM should have forced her resignation for the sake of propriety. A court has found Matt hancock guilty, still in position, as is robert Jenrick and Williamson(exam grades u turn fiasco). 

This isnt an attack on the tories, just this government. Plenty of conservatives have resigned from previous governments because they know that the convention of ministerial responsibility is important to keep some semblance of honesty in the system.

The only minister of Johnsons to resign has been Javid, who did nothing wrong, but believed the treasury should have some indendence from number 10. Make if that what you will. 

No court has.

A judge said that procedures had not been followed. Thats all.

And the reason was due to the PPE panic in early 2020.

 

 

[slawek]

10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

No court has.

A judge said that procedures had not been followed. Thats all.

And the reason was due to the PPE panic in early 2020.

 

 

Not true. Law was broken. This can't be blamed on PPE panic. Publishing a notice that a contract was signed doesn't take a lot of time.

"

Matt Hancock acted unlawfully when his department did not reveal details of contracts it had signed during the Covid pandemic, a court has ruled.

A judge said the health secretary had "breached his legal obligation" by not publishing details within 30 days of contracts being signed."

In his ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: "There is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the secretary of state breached his legal obligation to publish contract award notices within 30 days of the award of contracts.

"There is also no dispute that the secretary of state failed to publish redacted contracts in accordance with the transparency policy."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

[nothernsoul]

 I am  not trying to say politicians of the past were totally moral. It is just to say there was acceptance as a group that there was a line that cannot be crossed. The main rule was "Do not get caught in public doing this". If you do, resign for the sake of the system

This government has allowed ministers to continue when OTHER governments wouldnt, or couldnt. Ministers have even resigned when civil servants were to blame because it was their department. Have a look why paul channon resigned as thatchers transport minister for example . In an unwritten constitution ministers taking responsibility is crucial to protect abuse of power. 

The group that is really to blame is the media. They had it in for John majors government and would actively seek out scandal then push the story. It isnt good enough to just publish the story, they need to keep punching the bruise. Unfortunately our media is now either craven or complicit with the government. 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

54 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

 I am  not trying to say politicians of the past were totally moral. It is just to say there was acceptance as a group that there was a line that cannot be crossed. The main rule was "Do not get caught in public doing this". If you do, resign for the sake of the system

This government has allowed ministers to continue when OTHER governments wouldnt, or couldnt. Ministers have even resigned when civil servants were to blame because it was their department. Have a look why paul channon resigned as thatchers transport minister for example . In an unwritten constitution ministers taking responsibility is crucial to protect abuse of power. 

The group that is really to blame is the media. They had it in for John majors government and would actively seek out scandal then push the story. It isnt good enough to just publish the story, they need to keep punching the bruise. Unfortunately our media is now either craven or complicit with the government. 

Probably a lot easier to hush stuff up in the past than it is now.

Plus now the amount of information available and ability for the public to scrutinise and the amount of people scrutinising is much higher than it has been in the past.

I think ministers have to deal with some complex issues. If they had to resign every time they got something wrong then we would get through people at a hell of a rate and probably end up with less competent ministers.

I think there is a difference between a mistake made in good faith and deliberate deception/cover up. I also think if people make mistakes or behave inappropriately under most circumstances they should be given the opportunity to correct their behaviour rather than resign. I believe this is generally how things work in the real world.

Of course politics being what it is these days there are people screaming for heads for the slightest transgression. In some ways I have more respect for someone who backs their employee and says yes they made a mistake, but they have corrected it and I am backing them, rather than someone that just throws them to the wolves at the first opportunity, which is the easy political choice.

[Bruce Banner]

12 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Probably a lot easier to hush stuff up in the past than it is now.

Plus now the amount of information available and ability for the public to scrutinise and the amount of people scrutinising is much higher than it has been in the past.

I think ministers have to deal with some complex issues. If they had to resign every time they got something wrong then we would get through people at a hell of a rate and probably end up with less competent ministers.

I think there is a difference between a mistake made in good faith and deliberate deception/cover up. I also think if people make mistakes or behave inappropriately under most circumstances they should be given the opportunity to correct their behaviour rather than resign. I believe this is generally how things work in the real world.

Of course politics being what it is these days there are people screaming for heads for the slightest transgression. In some ways I have more respect for someone who backs their employee and says yes they made a mistake, but they have corrected it and I am backing them, rather than someone that just throws them to the wolves at the first opportunity, which is the easy political choice.

Cummings? Jenrick? 

[spyguy]

Isnt the smear more aim at the Pols, wit the CS escaping censure?

I cant comment on Pritti v Ruttman.

However waaaay before Pritti was a minister  ....

Ruttman was involved very much involved with the train contracts  that went to sh1t.

Followed by overseeing the TETRA replacement ,.which was and remains an ongoing disaster, 

https://www.theregister.com/Tag/tetra

 

I mention this as theres a massive scandal brewing up at the mo, where civil sarvants are well at the centre of it all.

Greensill blowing up.

https://www.ft.com/content/41a1cf9e-c610-4263-88a9-39a8c2944dbc

Jeremy Heywood who left CS, the nreturned, ring an up coming Ozzy with in , with lots of clever ideas of factor finance meet finsec.

The involvement of Cameron is minor thing; this is mainly about Heywood letting Lex Greensill run riot.

Most of Greensill capital has been poured into Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance, which has been buying lots of Scottish steel plants, with large dollops of public money from the Scottish government.

 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/gam-scandal-inside-the-probe-into-star-traders-conduct-51585084312

https://newsbeezer.com/ethiopia/greensills-death-sheds-light-on-relations-with-the-government/

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1367456058017525761

[satsuma]

3 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

It exists but it shouldn't be acceptable.

In private business she would have suffered the consequences of costing the company money. Instead, Rutnam has graciously accepted less than he would have received had he taken it all the way. Yes, it's cost the taxpayer, but hopefully it's shown that people can speak for themselves in these situations. 

I also maintain that Johnson has slept with her. No basis for that other than my intense dislike for both of them.  

 

I will say one thing and that is there is a limit to what he would have got at a tribunal, only about 77k.  Why they gave he 350k is a mystery.  

[slawek]

3 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

 I am  not trying to say politicians of the past were totally moral. It is just to say there was acceptance as a group that there was a line that cannot be crossed. The main rule was "Do not get caught in public doing this". If you do, resign for the sake of the system

This government has allowed ministers to continue when OTHER governments wouldnt, or couldnt. Ministers have even resigned when civil servants were to blame because it was their department. Have a look why paul channon resigned as thatchers transport minister for example . In an unwritten constitution ministers taking responsibility is crucial to protect abuse of power. 

The group that is really to blame is the media. They had it in for John majors government and would actively seek out scandal then push the story. It isnt good enough to just publish the story, they need to keep punching the bruise. Unfortunately our media is now either craven or complicit with the government. 

I think this is probably true. I am too young to know how things worked before. Nowadays media are often propaganda tubes of political parties. It is more like people who control media selects the winner so it is not anymore a media vs politicians spectacle.