Would You Carry Out An Independent Review?

[perseverer]

This is prompted by the Dominic Raab report, but is not specifically referring to that. Raab has said that the review is 'flawed.'
It seems to be more and more common when inquiries or reviews are carried out for someone who is found fault with to basically say, no, the inquiry got it wrong.
So is it worth carrying out an inquiry just to get criticised?

[Gromit]

They will have been well paid. And quickly realised the amount of evidence would inevitably mean they would find against the alleged weasel.
Because they have already be selected because they are independent, any claims of bias or flaws are just whinging from a bad loser.

[Hymie]

I am willing to be an independent reviewer for the UK government – my fee is £1 million, and I will throw in a bucket of whitewash for free.

[Togo]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Atheist]

Et tu Toge?

[Zacs-Master]

There is no more wrong or right only a beige-grey of opinion. Even law seems to be being consumed by this blurring of facts.

[Untitled]

Raab and Johnson are just trying to save their backsides... no politician is ever just going to roll over and admit wrongdoing are they

[Gromit]

It is interesting to contrast what has happened to Raab and what happened after the independent report into Priti Patel’s bullying.
The Patel report concluded that she was guilty of bullying. The PM at the time, Boris Johnson rejected the report and kept the utterly useless Patel in post.
Sunak seems to have reluctantly accepted the report’s findings and Raab is toast.

[Peter Pedant]

They will have been well paid. And quickly realised the amount of evidence would inevitably mean they would find against the alleged weasel.

are - they are well paid - a fren' forgot his insurance - oops - and a week at the GMC ( big boys court - ish) was £60k. Yup three zeros after the sixty

I have been involved in a works example

first of all be one of the Great and Good
then say " I am great and good " and this will enable me to say 'and tray reesh!"
Get TORs - terms of reference. -
here it was - examine the eight allegations, interview at great expense Mrs Mopp darn da lane - and come up with guilty.

and if the lu-lu is big enough- you say yeah! - or sho' ting.

But what about contested facts ? If the committee/tribunal/iinvestigator wishes to go to and fro the witnesses, endlessly ( Maxwellising, after the first time it was doone) - well drag em into COURT and MAKE them take and oath and then scream at them - "you're guilty huh, dont even try to say no!"

But that is not how we do things - the investigator is not a court, he cant drag anyone anywhere - and he cant apply oaths (!). He cant find guilt, he cant sentence

so it goes arn and arn - wowser ! ( thx to Gig Young, in They shoot horses dont they 1969)

and that is what they have been doing to the lawyers' Very Great Advantage.

You pay

[Peter Pedant]

so as far as I can see - Raab admitted the events and denied they amounted to bullying ( to which I agree actually)

classic material for NOT having a hearing - which would only be
one side - "they are ! they are! I cried myself to sleep many nights - but never resigned, I cheered up when I saw my civil servant mega-pay check"
and the other side: "you have to run a ministry, with pinko wets running a round saying - are you sure you can do that minister ? Lets us get an opinion which will take around a year. and I tell them they have to do what I bloody well say"

INSTEAD - each party separately gets around a table and says their party piece

But what about the Law? you wimper
Law ( Prevention of Harassment Act 1997 doesnt come into it, or someone would have gone there). So instead it is all about rules of employment, and it is this that Raab said accurately set the bar lower. ( he said too low)

[ynnafymmi]

Thanks again for the above,Peter.Your input into AB is always very illuminating.

[Peter Pedant]

I had this personally at my work,
where I asked for disciplinary code for affair A
and Miss Y told me there were two and she didnt know which one was being used.
which is plum against the Employment Act, and I threw a wobbler.
Miss Y screamed "bullying and harassment!" and both she and the employer felt that that meant she didnt have to give me EITHER ! -

you will note that Miss Y's harassment does NOT accord with harassment under the 1997 Act - But my employer allowed it completely disrupt the process of Affair A. As Stanley Unwin wd say: big commercial confusion confabulously. and costs 'ccumulate

same as Raab, someone doesnt want to do X at the Min and thinks that an allegation of bullying solves all. And Harassment is a word you have never heard in this context. Now you know why.

But if you are a govt axe-man, this is a big money maker. Jesus. It can run and run

[ynnafymmi]

As i said,Peter,very illuminating,shining a verbose and erudite light on the murky world of high politics and big business.I think.