Pritti Patel

some pretty wild assumptions and accusations there. Just as an aside what qualifies you to make them?

 

What qualifies anyone to make them? If people have to be qualified to make comments, then we’re all stumped.

What qualifies you to call them wild? And who says they are assumptions?

Much of what I say is in the news, just lower down the agenda and not head-line grabbing - and has been for years. So hardly wild.

Private companies can be the same at the top top - not limited to public service either.

 

If you make an assertion then the responsibility is yours to back it up, not to question 'if it's an assumption'.

If you can't then stfu.

 

Then you’ll need everyone on this thread to back up their opinions then - rather than just look at the headlines given.

Even the report said she’d faced resistance and awkwardness towards reform.

I speak from experience and also with working with people who currently deal with them.

I’d also say if people want to spend time, they can research all of the above online. It’s nothing new.

And I’m also concerned if people think Whitehall is such a fantastic place run by fantastic people. It isn’t - but it’s not everyone as a qualifies, it’s mainly the upper echelon.

 

And I’d also add - it’s part of the reason there’s a big call to move a large part of the Civil Service up North - in a bid to make them more relevant and see ‘outside London’.

All in the news....

 

It’s not like she hasn’t got form for this. She’s a bully, whether Whitehall is or isn’t a fantastic place, she has to conduct herself properly in a not only the position she holds, but as a human being.

 

Regardless of the pros and cons of the civil service this is just wrong. She seemed to lack and professionalism and self awareness in thinking that shouting at staff, cursing and swearing, was acceptable behaviour for a Minister. Until she was told she was doing at which point she issued a half assed apology. It smacks of someone who is used to getting her own way without question. In any other job speaking to your staff would get you disciplined or sacked.

Then Johnson wrote a forward to the code, hired the ex head of the Joint Intelligence Committee to look into cases just ignores his advice completely, because he has a veto over what's recommended. He does the correct thing and resigns. If your expertise and work is ignored, what's the point in doing the job.

Shouldn't be surprised though, this govt is serially incompetent.

 

I agree - maybe she could do better. The report states she has acknowledged and changed her attitude.

However, I’m not sure how it can be shook up and reformed at the top level without a bit of balls.

I’m talking the very top here. It’s incredibly hard to break the barriers.

 

The report was carried and found her behaviour to be bullying. Perhaps you should address that.

So that justifies losing your temper on a regular basis and bullying those under you? Anyone working in an office will tell you about how hard things are to change. Majority of people don't flip their lids and those doing so would face the consequences.

If she wants to lose her rag and have a rant then she should do it in private with someone she knows. Basic person management tells you to take people with you, not drive them away.

Of course maybe she's trying to do things that most reasonable people consider either unworkable or just plain *****, hence the pushback.

 

I’m with Pritti !!!
I’d guess she is an absolute swine to work for.
But that’s exactly what we need as Home Secretary.
Kick some ar@ss - inside and outside the department.
I’d work for her as she has my respect.

 

So many experts on the inner workings of Whitehall. What if I told you she was trying to impose changes which were either illegal or borderline illegal. She doesn't want to listen, she's got her ideas and wants them implementing. Windrush happened on the Tories watch, they've done nothing to actually help those affected thus the resignations within that working group.
But yeah it's all the lazy civil servants fault.

 

Like you did in your initial post?

Answer the question or ‘stfu’ basically? Easily done isn’t? Should you now stand down from this forum for swearing? Lol.

The report (iirc) doesn’t say she shouted and swore at people, just that she did in front of people. But I read it earlier and can’t remember now.

Regardless, there is an issue at the top level - and I’m afraid I can see why she probably did swear a lot. Some reports also mention the ‘bullying’ campaign could have been further orchestrated to get her out. We’ll never know this though.

We’ve all swore at work and shouted at folk to get stuff done. Most building sites would be empty based on this.

 

It’s more likely looking towards the large-scale outsourcing/privatisation of the Civil Service and public services

 

You really don’t know then do you. If I swore or shouted at a work colleague irrespective of my grade I would be in serious trouble.

 

As I’ve said, and I stand to be corrected - the report didn’t say she swore at someone. Just that she whilst people were present? Something like that.

And yes, a big difference between the two.

 

Trouble with the Civil Service is that the EU has been doing 60% of the work for 40 years. They are so EU dependent that it is little surprise that Ministers will get frustrated with the overpaid mandarins.

 

You deserve each other

 

Well I am shocked.

 

She was told to stop swearing at staff and bullying and to treat people with respect in 2019 , she has been sacked before for basically trying to conduct her own foreign policy in direct opposition to then Foreign Secretary . The Home Offices treatment of the Windrush claimants has been a national disgrace , under her oversite ....... but Jeremy Corbyn ...

 

Chortle