I conclude from that, that Johnson knew she was guilty but asked them to change the report!! How else could anyone conclude anything different
Well you’re absolutely correct that there are a small number of posters here who dislike anything Tory to such a degree that it could be unhealthy if unchallenged. but you’re wrong to jump to the defence of a bully, who has been in trouble for bullying before and that makes you as bad as the Labour supporters you just slagged off. You’re also wrong to try to shift the blame onto civil servants and treating them as if they’re one contiguous whole. you’re even further wrong about our need for a striker, we’ve just won 2-0 with 2 superb goals. as you were
Sorry not aimed at you. We disagree on most stuff but you ain't even close to being like those I am referring to. Anyway... Yerbut Woodrow!! Not getting giddy but 6 point off playoffs and 13th!! Yowzer!!!
Told you Tekky, the next time you get back over here it might be for a sunny Spring BBQ knees up, might also involve another trip to that there Wembley. Can you imagine getting crowds back in just in time for a play off run? Would be mental, and Leeds fans only get to see their team getting relegated. We can dream!.....
Sorry to post politics after such a great day of sport, but it's being reported that Mr Allan was refused access to Sir Phil Rutnam to interview him. God Lord, now will folk wake up? Our government are a Poundland version of the current Sh*tehouse administration. They state government officials refused, ultimately Boris sanctioned the investigation, so by the rules, its him that refused it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56281781 Government has paid out avoiding a court case. She’s still in a job. Make of that what you will.
Because the prime minister's salary is nowhere near sufficient for the scale of job and associated responsibilities. No idea why people use the pm's salary as a benchmark of what other people 'should' be paid.
The interesting thing here is that Rutnam resigned and (as I understand it) filed for constructive dismissal. 340k is the figure being quoted by The Times, which massively exceeds the new limit on public sector payouts. So while the government deny liability, the payout says something very very different. Patel remains, but is likely to be shunted sideways (if that's not rude) before we get to mid-summer.
On a related note, how is a Permanent Secretary in the Home Office - a job which makes him responsible for immigration, policing, prisons and more getting paid less than an average midfielder in the 2nd tier of English football?
This interests me; as a taxpayer, you’re clearly concerned about public sector earnings, so what would you think is a reasonable amount to pay for a permanent Secretary? Responsible for tens of thousands of staff, the upholding of laws and a budget of billions?
I haven’t got a clue, I just said I thought it was odd he was on very similar to a Prime Minister. You brought a footballer into it and I pointed out it want the same as it footballers are paid by a private sector.
With respect ******. Your original post suggested he was paid too much (more than the PM), even your ‘private sector’ nonsense re football supports that. But when you have to actually ‘think’ about what that job is worth in the marketplace, you’ve realised you were making some wild assertions. For context, the average CEO of a FTSE100 company earns 119x the average salary in their organisation. A permanent Secretary earns about 6x the average in theirs.
It all boils down to anyone in government can do whatever they want because we have a complete idiot as Prim Minister and he is liked by the majority of the people of Britain you just could not make it up.