Priti Patel

[Walkaround]

Is it actually possible to unintentionally bully someone? I always thought there had to be some knowledge of abuse of power - it’s supremely difficult to intimidate or coerce someone accidentally. The fact that the people Priti Patel works with as equals- other ministers - are falling over themselves to say how delightful she is to work with, whereas those who work for her accuse her of bullying surely makes it more likely her behaviour is deliberate bullying? Otherwise, her equals would find her to have an frightening, tyrannical demeanour, too!

@Theluggage15 - I’d like to hear her side of the story on secret meetings with Israeli Ministers, too. She might be able to point to equally corrupt behaviour from her other ministerial colleagues as a justification for her own corrupt practices.

@MullinerSpec

I've said this on another similar thread: So Rutnam was senior civil servant during the Windrush scandal, his department gave misleading info to Amber Rudd which meant she resigned and he now feels that he was unfairly treated and bullied because he was doing a sh*t job! Bullying is wrong but what would you do as a manager if you inherit a useless team who won't go and can't be fired because they have a cushy pension and salary.

Look at it this way 2 women Home Secretaries have been subjected to the home office civil service incompetence 1 paid for with loss of her job and the other, PP, being accused of bullying all to get them to work properly. And yes being a woman does have a lot to do with this a man would have got away with it, I'm speaking as a man.

I'm inclined to agree with this. There has been a catalogue of f@&£ ups in the Home Office for over 20 years. Ministers come and go yet the civil servants have largely remained.

I for one would like to see a huge shake up in that department. The only way to do it is to have a strong SoS in place for a really long time.

She is staying, so comments here are largely irrelevant.

She didn't get on with her whiny senior civil servants so they left. Probably asked and expected them to do a day's work and get on with an elected government's business.

The report didn't paint the Civil Service in a favourable light either:

The Home Secretary has also become - justifiably in many instances - frustrated by the Home Office leadership's lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID three years ago.

The Civil Service itself needs to reflect on its role during this period. The Home Office was not as flexible as it could have been in responding to the Home Secretary's requests and direction. She has - legitimately - not always felt supported by the department.

Remember also Rutnam was the cause of Amber Rudd's resignation and how the figures she asked for repeatedly and was told were not available/didn't exist suddenly, miraculously, appeared after she had resigned. I suspect Mr Rutnam doesn't like working for women.

So. Even if you have colleagues/ employees that are incompetent or useless it is still never ok to swear and shout at them.

Even if you are having a really terrible time personally or professionally it is never ok to swear and shout at junior staff.

This basic rule applies to everyone; man, women, bame, disabled, gay.

I'm inclined to agree with this. There has been a catalogue of f@&£ ups in the Home Office for over 20 years. Ministers come and go yet the civil servants have largely remained.

John Reid described it as not fit for purpose many years ago, Jacqui Smith said she survived the post more by luck than anything else, there is something rotten at the heart of this Government Department.

She should never have been there in the first place - she had already demonstrated her disdain for Ministerial code when Theresa May had to sack her. Johnson won't sack her because it makes him look bad - which makes him look worse, the dimwit.

Civil servants by the very nature of the job do the bidding of ministers. Whoever that is.

And they work really hard to achieve their political masters aims.

The report suggests that that was not the case in the Home Office.

And yet it is not only the Home Office where Priti Patel is accused of bullying.

Some messages make it sound as if the Conservatives have only just got in to power - they've been leading the Home Office for a decade.
If there are issues within the Department they've had sufficient time to change things to their liking.

Brendan May @bmay

In 1999, I had to ask a PR firm to take someone off the account of the charity I ran, as she was so unbelievably rude to our junior staff, including a receptionist who manned the phones. I never thought she’d end up as Home Secretary...

@Notonthestairs

Some messages make it sound as if the Conservatives have only just got in to power - they've been leading the Home Office for a decade. If there are issues within the Department they've had sufficient time to change things to their liking.

It doesn't appear to have changed much since John Reid's comments way back in 2006. There do seem to be roadblocks to change within Government Departments, it gives the impression that the Civil Service within these departments are protected to an inordinate degree and are unassailable.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-parliament-bullying-john-bercow-speaker-commons-harassment-female-women-sexual-a8247061.html%3famp

For those so sure the problem is only coincidentally the BAME female ..... please explain the above then?
Where is the referral? The investigation?

The investigation in to Bercow was blocked by standards committee as being out of time (3 votes to 2 - 3 votes against coming from 2 Tories and 1 labour)

Michael Gove presided over a dept with the greatest number of resignations ever. More than every other dept combined. Where is the investigation?
Gordon Brown - reported multiple times for intimidation and bully. Investigated? No of course not.

Notonthestairs
He was speaker for 10 years ..... why no investigation in 10 years. A BAME women is reported and investigated within minutes but 10 years and a newspaper investigation to ‘uncover’ his behaviour?! Why do you think that is?

@Effic - so you are suggesting a blind eye should be drawn to Priti Patel’s behaviour?

Ps Which has also been ongoing for years, in several departments!

Boris Johnson does not accept it as a breach of the ministerial code. Not saying that Priti Patel has apologised, offered her resignation and he has refused it.

There is a difference.

I think there has to be a formal complaint before there can be an investigation. I suspect a lot of people sign an NDA and are paid off without formalising their complaint. And the process is then repeated.

I was bullied out of a job - I didn't formalise it because it would have wrecked my career. I am uncomfortable with any MP being able to abuse their position of power.

So I'm not arguing that it's right - just pointing out that it was effectively Tory and Labour MP's blocking Bercows investigation.

Do you think it’s ok for an entire dept to “not support” their minister? Do you think a man would have been expected to tolerated this?
Do you think poor Sir Phillip holds no responsibility for the fact his dept refused to cooperate with their minister? Wonder why that was? Because it can’t be policy disagreement as they are supposed to be apolitical.
Do you think women should be held to a higher standard and face consequences that men who have behaved in the same way do not?

Apart from not making her a coffee what exactly did her department not do that she wanted them to do? What did she do about it? Does she understand if you are head of a department you have to take some responsibility because the buck stops with you?

Effic - I think the newspaper report explains in part how many MP's have avoided being investigated.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-to-be-stripped-of-role-in-bullying-investigations-n0s8kcczp

Have the people that haven’t seen or heard of her atrocious behaviour and attitude on multiple fronts and situations been living under a rock?

She is a despicable woman.

@Effic

Your argument reminds me a little of the 1,400 children sexually abused in Rotherham who initially got away with it because authorities didn’t want an open dialogue so as not to appear racist.