O/T:- Johnson & Patel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse

...just because 9 out of 10 think they're right doesn't make them right. Conveniently, selecting not to include the causes of the use of industrial language indicates a certain bias against the user. Can you imagine Messrs Sirrel or Clough using diplomatic language when addressing those who failed to act. The cosy wasters of the Civil Service deserve, in some cases, a tongue lashing ...

---

It is simple.

She was accused of breaking the Ministerial Code. Everyone found to have done that has been asked to step down, and they have.

Johnson asked for an inquiry - simply, 'Did the Home Secretary break the Ministerial Code?'

The inquiry found she had.

Johnson decided she hadn't.

This 'industrial language' was called bullying in the report. Do you think the Home Secretary should act in that way? It is one of the 3 great offices of state and is no place for someone to act like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse

... ok lefty denier mob, since you seem to want to ignore the facts, tell me who messed up with the so called Windrush cock up? Although protocols indicate that a minister faces the ultimate responsibility, it's the administrators who do the work, or not, as the case may be. So go on, tell me sweet lefties ...

---

I’m not a sweet lefty, but I’ll reply anyway. May as Home Secretary brought in a “hostile environment” about 8 years ago I think. Since then, successive Home Secretaries have done little to suggest that they aren’t very keen to keep the environment hostile to immigrants; a few empty words are not enough. It is Governments, and particularly Home Secretaries, who set out what they require from the Home Office, and they have little excuse when the Home Office enacts their hostile environment (often cheered on by the usual suspects in the media and on message boards).

... the Minister may set the tone but performance is measured by either capability or conduct, or both. If the minister fell short on conduct in this case the PM had to decide on how serious was the offence. If civil service staff fall short on capability or conduct then it probably was sufficiently serious for PP to react in an unbecoming manner. However, that does not necessarily mean a sacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

We already had a trade deal with Canada. Any idea when we’re going to see the benefits of Brexit, rather than vast swathes of Kent being turned into piss and sh!t parks?

---

Did I state we did not? Of course we currently trade with Canada BUT under the terms of the EU currently in place and will continue until the year ends. The new deal is an interim agreement to continue on these terms until a new completely unfettered deal is negotiated to suit both Canada and us without any of the EU rules and restrictions applying. If you don't know, this is often known as a Letter of Intent.

Benefits of Brexit? Simple ...... we become responsible for all our future actions without being shackled by foreign law.

Lorry parks? If necessity deems it ... then do it. A few past and present examples of green land becoming 'industrialised' for necessity.

RAF stations built pre-war. Thousands of acres concreted over in the countryside ...... your county being one of the main ones.

Mineral extraction: Deep mining and opencast, Quarrying ....... i.e. British Gypsum and many more plants built in the countryside.

Electricity: Many huge power stations built alongside rivers in the countryside.

Airports, Motorways, Railways etc.

All the above combined dwarfing the proposed project you refer to. Don't you think the environment and the farming industry for example were harmed in any way by these projects and there weren't protests? Of course there were protests I would imagine, in many cases justifiable. But protecting, feeding, powering the country, producing raw materials and movement of such was deemed a necessity. Not always the correct decisions in the opinion of many living near these projects but in the greater scope of things, for the majority of the populace, the correct decisions.

So Serious, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that building vast lorry parks, with all the attended cost and inconvenience, is ok because, amongst other reasons, there are RAF bases in Lincolnshire? Really?

As I’m sure you know, there are a lot fewer bases than what there were because they’re not needed anymore. Don’t forget people were promised that Brexit would bring less red tape and cost, not more. That is already looking like the fantasy it always was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse

... the Minister may set the tone but performance is measured by either capability or conduct, or both. If the minister fell short on conduct in this case the PM had to decide on how serious was the offence. If civil service staff fall short on capability or conduct then it probably was sufficiently serious for PP to react in an unbecoming manner. However, that does not necessarily mean a sacking.

---

Bullying is a pretti ineffective management style, so perhaps she should go for incompetence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie

Bullying is a pretti ineffective management style, so perhaps she should go for incompetence?

---

Boris said she didn't bully though. (Fake news).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie

Bullying is a pretti ineffective management style, so perhaps she should go for incompetence?

---

In amongst all the pathetic excuses for Patel, (including she’s small lol) I’ve not seen anyone list all her achievements at the Home office. Funny that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magpie_mania

Boris said she didn't bully though. (Fake news).

---

Actually, he appeared to say that she might have bullied just a tiny bit, but she didn't mean to bully and she's said sorry anyway.

It's all about as credible as taking your wife and kid on a drive to test your eyesight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite_Pie

Actually, he appeared to say that she might have bullied just a tiny bit, but she didn't mean to bully and she's said sorry anyway.

It's all about as credible as taking your wife and kid on a drive to test your eyesight.

---

Agree entirely and then there's saying Corbyn (Labour) wasn't (isn't) anti-Semetic. Who'd have thunk it!!