Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank16 mins ago
What Shud Boris Do Now?
113 Answers
If the ministerial code is broken how serious should the consequences be in this case?
https:/
The code says "harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour" will not be tolerated.
It adds that ministers are "personally responsible" for how they act - and that they can stay in office "for so long as they retain the confidence of the prime minister".
https:/
The code says "harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour" will not be tolerated.
It adds that ministers are "personally responsible" for how they act - and that they can stay in office "for so long as they retain the confidence of the prime minister".
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Personallly, I have a real problem with anyone who is accused of bullying and basically says - I didn't mean to be a bully, therefore I am not a bully, and the error rests fairly and squarely with the person I bullied, because I didn't mean to, therefore the fault is theirs.
It's like people who say "I call a spade a spade ... " and "I believe in plain speaking, and saying what I think ..." and what that's actually shorthand for is -
I lack even the basics of the notion of empathy, and I believe my view is more important that anyone else's, and I shall share it loudly and often, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an over-sensitive idiot.
Just because Ms Patel says she "did not mean to be a bully" does not mean that she did not behave like one.
In my view, it is not for her subordinates to have to accept her behaviour on the basis that, some time in the future, she will explain it away as being something that was simply misunderstood at the time.
The notion of bullying is in the hands of the bullied, not the bully - everyone can always explain away any bad situation by saying they 'didn't mean it'.
But that is not how the world works.
If I drive down the road and run someone over, i can;t get out of my car and say - I don't know you and clearly did not wish you any harm, so you haven't actually got broken bones and blood coming out of your ears, because I 'didn't mean it'.
Intent is not the measure, it's the damage done, and I think Ms atel has got away lightly - although obviously I know no details, but the way that this has been framed is wrong.
It's like people who say "I call a spade a spade ... " and "I believe in plain speaking, and saying what I think ..." and what that's actually shorthand for is -
I lack even the basics of the notion of empathy, and I believe my view is more important that anyone else's, and I shall share it loudly and often, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an over-sensitive idiot.
Just because Ms Patel says she "did not mean to be a bully" does not mean that she did not behave like one.
In my view, it is not for her subordinates to have to accept her behaviour on the basis that, some time in the future, she will explain it away as being something that was simply misunderstood at the time.
The notion of bullying is in the hands of the bullied, not the bully - everyone can always explain away any bad situation by saying they 'didn't mean it'.
But that is not how the world works.
If I drive down the road and run someone over, i can;t get out of my car and say - I don't know you and clearly did not wish you any harm, so you haven't actually got broken bones and blood coming out of your ears, because I 'didn't mean it'.
Intent is not the measure, it's the damage done, and I think Ms atel has got away lightly - although obviously I know no details, but the way that this has been framed is wrong.
///I didn't mean to be a bully, therefore I am not a bully, and the error rests fairly and squarely with the person I bullied///
that's about it, andy-hughes. "Oh gosh, is that illegal? Well, I didn't mean to be a tax evader, therefore I'm not one."
Ignorance of the law is not normally an excuse, and people do not normally get to define their own behaviour as legal; but the government is a little world of its own.
that's about it, andy-hughes. "Oh gosh, is that illegal? Well, I didn't mean to be a tax evader, therefore I'm not one."
Ignorance of the law is not normally an excuse, and people do not normally get to define their own behaviour as legal; but the government is a little world of its own.
So Priti Arrogant is accused of harassing , bullying etc . An investigation is ordered .No doubt costing thousands of £s of Tax Payers money. She is found guilty. Boris throws the case out , not guilty as far as he is concerned, case closed end of. She is very attractive. Has Boris been influenced by a male member
in a way, the expenses system was fair. It meant that if an MP from hundreds of miles away from London needed a flat near his/her workplace it should be affordable, otherwise only the rich could afford to be MPs. But it was administered incredibly laxly, so MPs had their duck refuges paid for and so on.
jno - // in a way, the expenses system was fair. It meant that if an MP from hundreds of miles away from London needed a flat near his/her workplace it should be affordable, otherwise only the rich could afford to be MPs. But it was administered incredibly laxly, so MPs had their duck refuges paid for and so on. //
The principle of parliamentary expenses is fine, as you say, MP's from far-flug constituencies should be entitled to get accomodation in London, but, as was found out, the ability to abuse it to ludicrous levels was not only discovered, it was exploited to utterly shameful levels by people who ought, by definition, to have the integrity not to do so,
The principle of parliamentary expenses is fine, as you say, MP's from far-flug constituencies should be entitled to get accomodation in London, but, as was found out, the ability to abuse it to ludicrous levels was not only discovered, it was exploited to utterly shameful levels by people who ought, by definition, to have the integrity not to do so,
Picking up on Andy-Hughes's point, I save a very special loathing for people who say 'I speak my mind', as though they're proud of it and think it's an asset, whereas they should not be proud of it, and it's far from an asset - in fact, they're generally disliked.
People who 'speak their mind' have no idea that they are in fact boorish and rude and have no comprehension that they're reviled.
Yes, occasionally, it's necessary to be blunt, but people who proudly say they 'speak their mind' do so on everything, as though their's is the only opinion that matters.
The proud thing to do, and it is an asset, is to know when to keep your counsel.
Having said the above, I've heard it countless times on AB people boasting that they 'speak their minds', but a pound to a penny most wouldn't do so when speaking to somebody face to face.
Merely as a BTW...I quite fancy Priti Patel!
People who 'speak their mind' have no idea that they are in fact boorish and rude and have no comprehension that they're reviled.
Yes, occasionally, it's necessary to be blunt, but people who proudly say they 'speak their mind' do so on everything, as though their's is the only opinion that matters.
The proud thing to do, and it is an asset, is to know when to keep your counsel.
Having said the above, I've heard it countless times on AB people boasting that they 'speak their minds', but a pound to a penny most wouldn't do so when speaking to somebody face to face.
Merely as a BTW...I quite fancy Priti Patel!
Deskdiary - // Picking up on Andy-Hughes's point, I save a very special loathing for people who say 'I speak my mind', as though they're proud of it and think it's an asset, whereas they should not be proud of it, and it's far from an asset - in fact, they're generally disliked. //
I can only agree, and interestingly, I think such a preamble to a statement is borne or insecurity.
Why would you need to advise people you are speaking your own mind - who else's mind would you be speaking????????
I can only agree, and interestingly, I think such a preamble to a statement is borne or insecurity.
Why would you need to advise people you are speaking your own mind - who else's mind would you be speaking????????
///Home Secretary Priti Patel was warned on several occasions to treat staff with respect, a former top official who resigned over the row has told the BBC.
An inquiry found Ms Patel's behaviour broke the rules - although she was "unaware" of her conduct.
But ex-official Sir Philip Rutnam has contradicted this, saying Ms Patel was told not to shout and swear at staff a month after becoming home secretary.///
Hmmm.
https:/
An inquiry found Ms Patel's behaviour broke the rules - although she was "unaware" of her conduct.
But ex-official Sir Philip Rutnam has contradicted this, saying Ms Patel was told not to shout and swear at staff a month after becoming home secretary.///
Hmmm.
https:/
Latest Posts
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.