Non-motoring > Sir Philip Rutnam resigns	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Lygonos	Replies: 68

New Sat 29 Feb 20 10:12   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Lygonos

And plans to sue for constructive dismissal. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51687287 Normally you expect these guys to move sideways, or take a package and move to the private sector. I suspect he is very peed off with Patel/HMG and wants his story in the public arena. Interesting. Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 29 Feb 20 at 10:12 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 10:25   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

....not old enough to retire (unless he's amassed wealth from somewhere) and going through the process he's threatening is not likely to be conducive to the offer of lucrative job opportunities. Proving constructive dismissal is a rocky road, I hope he has been well advised and is confident of his evidence (colleagues may well not agree to bear witness in fear of their own futures). He may be hoping that the Government will buy him off, at a price higher than he could extract as a normal pay-off, or he may be looking for his pound of flesh with Patel. (Or both). One would hope (possibly in vain) that a senior civil servant wouldn't let their heart rule their head. I suspect the odds are better than 50:50 that it won't last as far as a Tribunal verdict. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 10:35   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

>> ....not old enough to retire (unless he's amassed wealth from somewhere) and going through the Assuming his terms are same as those in junior Civil Service earliest age for redundancy with early pension and no actuarial reduction is 55. He's a year or so short. When I left it was 50 but index linking didn't kick in until 55. As TnE says I suspect it will be settled without going to a tribunal. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 10:42   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Lygonos

Chief civil servant in the Home Office. If he was after a job elsewhere I doubt he'd be struggling, be it a non-exec directorship(s) or substantive post. This is very unusual - I expect he has substantial dry powder, has gone bonkers, and/or really really want to give Patel a kicking. The current Govt's history of simply ignoring the law and normal process likely pervades the whole governance structure - perhaps he is acting on the principle that the current bunch appears even more corrupt(ing) than what has come before. Reply to this message | Report message       4

New Sat 29 Feb 20 10:48   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> If he was after a job elsewhere I doubt he'd be struggling, be it a >> non-exec directorship(s) or substantive post. >> >> This is very unusual - I expect he has substantial dry powder, has gone bonkers, >> and/or really really want to give Patel a kicking. The possibility of both these, (and other possible theories) plus the fact that he is going to p*** off (have an unworkable relationship with) a Government that still has best part of 5 years to run (gawd 'elp us) won't do his prospects of a high-profile post any good at all. It's far from impossible that he will find something "comfortable" but the circumstances will limit his choices. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 10:42   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

...there's a difference between resigning and taking early retirement via the redundancy route. I thought the earliest a "full" CS pension could be taken without redundancy was 60. (Redundancy would be a rather difficult situation to deliver anyway: I suspect the function, and indeed the job title, will survive). Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 11:46   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Terry

People don't get to be "Sir" and rise to the top of the civil service without being extremely bright, socially adept, and high quality managers. He may not get a high profile job, and he may not want one. But he will be employable at a very senior level - if for no other reason than his track record in managing a department of many '000s of staff, £bn budgets, and behaving with integrity. The public sector are also very wary of washing their dirty linen in public. Given the high profile rift between Pritti and Sir Phillip, neither would have benefitted from the suggestion that a large redundancy payment was any other than a bribe by Pritti to encourage Sir Phillip to leave. He may also be expecting a higher pay off for constructive dismissal, and the pleasure of dragging Pritti through the courts! Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 12:05   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

Resignation statement in full: www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/29/philip-rutnam-resignation-his-full-statement Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 12:12   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Zero

the Cabinet Office offered me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome. So He wants to slap Pritti. Expect an outburst of racism and misogyny claims from her. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 12:12   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> People don't get to be "Sir" and rise to the top of the civil service >> without being extremely bright, socially adept, and high quality managers. >> Really? Whilst I have no particular down on the Civil Service, much like any other large organisation there are senior people who fail against those criteria, sometimes all of them - I've met a few such Civil Servants (and many in other organisations). I certainly can't vouch for the current subject either way, though. >> He may not get a high profile job, and he may not want one. But >> he will be employable at a very senior level - if for no other reason >> than his track record in managing a department of many '000s of staff, £bn budgets, >> and behaving with integrity. >> I can also say with certainty that many organisations will look at someone who has been to an Industrial Tribunal and ask themselves some very searching questions before employing. (As I said, it doesn't debar future employment, but it is likely to limit opportunities). >> The public sector are also very wary of washing their dirty linen in public. Given >> the high profile rift between Pritti and Sir Phillip, neither would have benefitted from the >> suggestion that a large redundancy payment was any other than a bribe by Pritti to >> encourage Sir Phillip to leave. >> The word "Redundancy" isn't in play here - he isn't/wasn't threatened with redundancy. He seems quite happy to publicise the fact that he has been offered a severance payment (his resignation statement makes that clear) and if he had accepted, it could all have been written off as a "clash of personalities" and it would largely have been forgotten in a month or so. >> He may also be expecting a higher pay off for constructive dismissal, and the pleasure >> of dragging Pritti through the courts! >> I suspect he (at least at the moment) savours the latter, but, depending on the nature of the offer already made, good luck with the former! In some ways (particularly if the atmosphere between the Government and the Civil Service is as toxic as some would have us believe) I admire someone who has the guts to stand up and be counted; I can't help but think, however, that he is emotionally driven, and has been poorly advised (or advised by someone who doesn't have his best interests at heart). Anyway, it'll provide something to get the popcorn out for ;-) Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 12:52   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - smokie

I don't imagine a senior career civil servant with his background would take a position like this unless he was confident of his ground and I certainly don't think he'd be doing it simply out of spite or personal malice. And I don't think many would go public in the way he has. He's fighting fire with fire IMO. I guess the settlement offer included an NDA which he probably wouldn't want to agree to. These lines from his resignation implies he's doing it with others in mind and, if true, is a damning indictment of at least one senior member of government. "My experience has been extreme but I consider there is evidence it was part of a wider pattern of behaviour." “I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands – behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out." Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 13:07   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> I don't imagine a senior career civil servant with his background would take a position >> like this unless he was confident of his ground....... >> ...as I've said, proving constructive dismissal is a rocky road which requires careful preparation and presentation of evidence. Looking at his resignation statement, my suspicion is that the nub of any case will be around the paragraphs: "Even despite this campaign I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister. But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this." If he has made concerted efforts to meet with the Home Secretary since they were both so instructed, and she has not responded (to what is obviously an urgent matter) or even worse has actively rebutted any approach, then evidence of the same should be easy to present, and would form a good foundation for further arguments about treatment. Any motivation is still, however, under question. I note the FDA are providing active support. It is certainly in their interest to find a figurehead to put up against the Government. Other than spite or personal malice, and if one excludes any altruistic motive of him doing it for the wider good, then the only sensible reason to go to Tribunal is financial, and I suspect that the Government have been cute enough to already have made a severance offer that makes finacial advantage unlikely. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 12:50   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>> People don't get to be "Sir" and rise to the top of the civil service >> without being extremely bright, socially adept, and high quality managers. Well, I don't know him, but I do know others. They absolutely can and do. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 12:59   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>>going through the process he's threatening is not likely to be conducive to the offer of lucrative job opportunities. Quite the contrary, in fact. If one wanted to convince the world that one was looking to straighten out your company then what better display then engaging him as a Non-Exec? His network is phenomenal, and his integrity seemingly well displayed. If anything this will have raised his profile. Provided, of course, that he either wins a constructive dismissal case or is 'known' to have been well paid off. If he is paid then it'll be a Compromise Agreement with an NDA so nobody will know for sure. Far more difficult from the Government point of view. They've offered him money once to go away. He couldn't have spoken about that if he'd accepted it, but he can if they offered it. That's why typically the employee has to make the first approach. Subsequently increasing that offer to avoid a court case will have a wider effect for those who appointed and then protected Priti Patel. I should think this will essentially end Priti Patel's career and she may well be "reshuffled" at the earliest opportunity. No loss, I shouldn't think. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 13:16   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> >> Quite the contrary, in fact. If one wanted to convince the world that one was >> looking to straighten out your company then what better display then engaging him as a >> Non-Exec? >> .....or of course, you could believe a potential Government line that he's presided over a chaotic Home Office for the last three years, has been obstructive to change in that time, and is now proving incapable of managing the urgent extra change coming down the line for Brexit.... He just had to go. Because, if it does go to Tribunal, something like that is likely to be the tack. No winners, I think (but the Government doesn't face imminent unemployment, at least for nearly 5 years ;-) ). Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 13:30   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

You're getting confused between reality and perception. Everything the Government says about him could be true. It won't matter to his future roles. >>something like that is likely to be the tack. Not a chance. He could be the most obstructive, difficult, obstinate man alive and that is still no defense against constructive dismissal. What would they be saying? Ok we / Patel did it but he deserved it? You say anything like that in a tribunal and you better be able to provide written evidence that he has been spoken to formally and warned about his behavior, and asked to change it. And even then you'd have to justify why you didn't fire him. And even then that is still no defense. The only defense is that the Tribunal is either convinced you didn't do it, or there isn't reasonable grounds to believe that you did. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 13:41   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> You're getting confused between reality and perception. >> >> He could be the most obstructive, difficult, obstinate man alive and that is still no >> defense against constructive dismissal. >> ...nope. I wasn't saying that it was. Having resigned, he has to prove constructive dismissal. That means that he has to prove that the treatment of him steps over a given threshold, not just that he was "getting a hard time from management". A valid defence would be that he was getting a hard time because he was underperforming, had been told so, and was being given time and opportunity to pull up his socks (before potentially being dismissed -though I agree that one wouldn't choose to tell a Tribunal "He just had to go"). As I also said, if he has compelling evidence that Ms Patel was studiously avoiding any relationship (having been told to build bridges) then he may well be positioned to prove (or at least support) that verdict of constructive dismissal. Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 29 Feb 20 at 13:42 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 13:50   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>> A valid defence would be that he was getting a hard time because he was >> underperforming, had been told so, and was being given time and opportunity to pull up >> his socks (before potentially being dismissed There is NO defense for giving an employee a hard time. To even treat that employee differently they would have to prove both the non/under -performance and that he had been informed, explanation, and targets/goals with criteria and dates. Assuming that what he is purported to have said, as reported by the BBC, is true. Then he's got this one nailed. And it won't affect future opportunities in any negative way. And Patel still has a career direction, it's just no longer up. Of course, if he said it and it isn't true, then he'll be the one on a spit. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 16:29   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> >> There is NO defense for giving an employee a hard time. To even treat that >> employee differently they would have to prove both the non/under -performance and that he had been informed, explanation, and targets/goals with criteria and dates. >> I don't know whether you're deliberately misunderstanding me or...... ;-) I put the phrase "getting a hard time from management" in quotes deliberately, and in the following paragraph then rather defined what you've set out above but in different words. ============== Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to differ on the implications. As I see it (ignoring any bias on the merits of either party's actions): There patently are irreconcilable differences (which may or may not have resulted in behaviour which crossed the threshold of grounds for Constructive Dismissal. Sir Philip will now have to plead that case to an Employment Tribunal; there are defined grounds for success; and he will have to deliver proof). The Government may simply choose not to contest (which would be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory) or it may choose to defend, along the lines I've set out, or others, in which case things could get nasty, for either/both sides. It may provide a bit of entertainment, but I doubt it will provide much enlightenment. The Government (actually the Civil Service) have already offered Sir Philip, by his own admission, a severance package. Given Government lawyers will have been looking at the possibility of Constructive Dismissal, and they can calculate just about to the penny what a maximum award would be at a Tribunal, I can't believe that any offer significantly undercut that amount. Any decent advice to Sir Philip would also have him understand the financials. Given that, I can't see that any motivation in pursuing a Constructive Dismissal claim is likely to revolve around money. Even if he had accepted a Compromise Agreement with an NDA it would be "known" (note the quotes) that this was a substantial pay-off. (You've been around, Mark. I can't believe that you don't know people who have left under an NDA, and that you don't substantially know the terms, if not quite to the last letter/number, under which they left). Frankly, with his views on the background still warm, if not even hot, IMO his interests would have been best served by accepting severance, playing his connections relatively "unsullied" and pursuing a senior post in private industry. If one eliminates the financial motive, then there are really only two others that come to mind, neither of which (IMO) place him in a good light. The 'altruistic' motive of exposing what he feels is a wider toxic culture in his department or the Civil Service as a whole. He's already (prior to any offer) exposed such thoughts. Accepting the offer and leaving would be almost as seismic as prolonging any discussion to a point of Tribunal. It would certainly invoke widespread discussion in the media (it has). In reality, though, any protest is unlikely to make much difference in this arena. The Government has declared its hand, and I'm pretty sure is ready for more such culls, either the easy way or the hard way (and I'm not convinced they care which - It's the Trump playbook). Given this, if this is his motive, then I think his judgement is questionable. (I do wonder at the FDA involvement, though). The revenge motive of getting at Ms Patel. Given his emotive resignation, and my feelings above, this seems the most likely. If that is the motive, however, revenge isn't a "good look" for an ex-senior Civil Servant in want of a job, and, whilst there is potential to damage Ms Patel, I'm not entirely sure it will happen with this Government. I'm also not sure that any action will damage her much more than accepting the severance, since the only people who can really bear on that would be full party to the background and agreement anyway. She is already "damaged goods" from previous actions in office, but has risen again. She fits the Government agenda, and might just survive. If the Government choose to attack, even if they don't successfully defend the case, there may well be scope to further damage Sir Philip. So, in summarising, I think any prospective future employer is likely to be looking at his actions, pondering on any motivation, and potentially deciding that it hasn't put him in a good light. (That's my view, it differs from Mark's, and I'm no longer a prospective employer, so it probably matters not a jot). I still think he is being driven more by emotion than logic. Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 29 Feb 20 at 16:33 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 17:33   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>> I don't know whether you're deliberately misunderstanding me or...... ;-) I am most certainly not. If I'm being thick then there's nothing behind it. If you see what I mean. Though I do fundamentally disagree with you about how a tribunal considers a constructive dismissal case, defenses which can be used and on the likely implications on his future opportunities. I certainly don't think he is being driven by altruistic motivation and I think that this has been dealt with far less competently than you believe. I don't have much more to say other than repeating what I already have said. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 21 Apr 20 16:45   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - tyrednemotional

>> The Government (actually the Civil Service) have already offered Sir Philip, by his own admission, >> a severance package. Given Government lawyers will have been looking at the possibility of Constructive >> Dismissal, and they can calculate just about to the penny what a maximum award would >> be at a Tribunal, I can't believe that any offer significantly undercut that amount. Any >> decent advice to Sir Philip would also have him understand the financials. Given that, I >> can't see that any motivation in pursuing a Constructive Dismissal claim is likely to revolve >> around money. >> I see the recourse to Employment Tribunal has now been enacted. In context of the paragraph I posted above, it also has an interesting twist, as the claim is being brought for both Constructive Dismissal and "Whistleblowing". The maximum payout for Constructive Dismissal is capped (and frankly, not at a particularly high level in comparison to a senior civil servant's salary). The compensation for Whistleblowing is not, however, and can take into account extra factors, including the subsequent career damage to the whistleblower. It seems to me that there has been some rapid reassessment behind the scenes, and a decision to "go for broke". A successful action under Constructive Dismissal would give Rutnam his day in court, some revenge, and possibly an uncertain financial future. A successful parallel claim under Whistleblowing would potential remove the latter. Whatever, as I said above, it will be time for the popcorn. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 16:41   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Lygonos

NoFM2R et al, management question: If you assessed a business and came to the conclusion that certain managers/workers were irretrievably detrimental to the objectives and morale of such a business, how would you get rid of them? In this case I presume redundancy is not an option as there post of Chief of Staff is a necessity - can you simply say "Thanks but we want you to go - here's a shedload of cash" or would you need to go through the hoops of performance assessments and being able to show that the worker couldn't do the job? I have only dismissed people for gross misconduct, or because they were early into their employment and were underperforming so badly despite trying to train and retrain them that it was best for the business. Summary: if you take over a business with toxic workers, how do you get rid?! Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 17:49   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

Lygonos, I've answered several times with examples and deleted them all. Too close. If you are genuinely trying to do the best for the business, and the best for the welfare of employees, both of which I believe i am known for, then it is simply a matter of helping those concerned understand reality. It is very, very rare that one meets a truly malicious person, they are usually just in the wrong place, scared and defensive. And in my experience typically have been very badly managed in the past. By an large no employee chooses a job that they can't do on purpose. It is a matter of making people genuinely feel that I am seeking the right solution for everybody, that I am the person or organization that will help them get it, and that screwing with me will go very very badly wrong. The really, really tough ones, the ones that keep me awake, are where you have a genuinely good person, good work ethics, valuable in the past, but that no longer has a skillset that the bus9iness requires but that really, really needs the job. Getting rid of t***s is easy, but strangely very rarely the position. People prefer to be valuable and successful, it's a matter of giving them the right opportunity to be so. The genuinely malicious and useless will usually take the first severance offer they can get their hands on. Usually getting shot of someone is followed up fairly swiftly by dumping whoever managed them as well. One takes no action until one understands all the actions that one will take and the implications of them. One remembers that one has a goal, and that one doesn't really give a s*** why someone leaves, just so long as they do. And if it helps them to tell everybody that they 'won' then it's no skin off my nose and one less problem in my day. Egos have no place. I'll answer in detail with helpful examples in email if you are sufficiently interested, but not in public. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sat 29 Feb 20 19:25   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Lygonos

>>I'll answer in detail with helpful examples in email if you are sufficiently interested, but not in public. Thanks - I don't need specific examples and is probably unfair to ask you to describe them even via email, but your response is very helpful and insightful >>Egos have no place Gonna stick that on a placard over the surgery entrance ;-) Cheers. Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 29 Feb 20 at 19:27 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 17:50   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>would you need to go through the hoops of performance assessments and being able to show that the worker couldn't do the job? Very, very rarely. Not never, but rarely. Give them a way out retaining face, they'll usually take it. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 29 Feb 20 13:23   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Zero

>> I should think this will essentially end Priti Patel's career and she may well be >> "reshuffled" at the earliest opportunity. No loss, I shouldn't think. Her career is toast, as anyone's would be that has induced bad headlines about the boss Not now of course, within the next 6 months Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sat 29 Feb 20 23:18   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Netsur

I don't understand the 'Sir' bit. Do your job, get paid, retire. Why a knighthood for doing your job? He has obviously been spoiling for a Brexit related fight for years. Time he went for not following elected government policy. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sat 29 Feb 20 23:35   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Lygonos

Yawn. Netsur backing Israel's chum Patel is as obvious as Bromp hating on the Tories. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sun 1 Mar 20 09:57   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

>> I don't understand the 'Sir' bit. Do your job, get paid, retire. Why a knighthood >> for doing your job? Some Permanent Secretaries get a knighthood but it's not automatic or universal. A number of current incumbents are not Knights/Dames. >> He has obviously been spoiling for a Brexit related fight for years. Time he went >> for not following elected government policy. I think the issue is what Patel wants done and how quickly. The Home Office is already struggling with its current workload including bog standard visa/leave to remain stuff and the EU Settlement Scheme. They lost a lot of experienced staff because of austerity and work was downgraded or contracted out - one of the factors in Windrush was loss of staff with authority to use common sense exercise discretion. They're struggling to integrate different IT systems; some tasks require staff to log onto two completely different terminals/systems. Brexit has changed the way things need to be done and it takes time to get on top of that. If Patel says she wants a points based system legislated for and up and running in less than ten months the Perm Sec would be derelict if he didn't spell out the fact that doing so might involve some heroic assumptions as to what's possible. It also looks as if the legal challenges to deportations to Jamaica had her throwing a hissy fit. The fact is that every previous Home Secretary in my lifetime has previously held, and apparently succeeded at, previous senior office in government of opposition. Patel's only previous office was foreign aid where she was sacked for going off on a frolic and being less than frank with the PM when accounting for what she'd done. She's way out of her depth. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 1 Mar 20 at 09:58 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 10:35   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Zero

She is only there because she is a yes woman. As is all the cabinet. They are not even answering to Boris but Dominc. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 10:43   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - sooty123

I see the briefings have started for the sunday news stories. Rumours that he was awkward, difficult and obstructive when Rudd was HS. Trying to set out the stall that he has history for this type of thing. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 12:09   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Duncan

>> She's way out of her depth. >> You would, of course, it almost goes without saying, have pointed this at such length and with such obvious relish if she had been a Labour politician. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 12:20   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

>> You would, of course, it almost goes without saying, have pointed this at such length >> and with such obvious relish if she had been a Labour politician. Do you disagree with either my diagnosis of the Home Office's problems or of Ms Patel's possession or otherwise of the competences needed for the job? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 1 Mar 20 at 12:20 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 13:15   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>> >> You would, of course, it almost goes without saying, have pointed this at such >> length >> >> and with such obvious relish if she had been a Labour politician. >> >> Do you disagree with either my diagnosis of the Home Office's problems or of Ms >> Patel's possession or otherwise of the competences needed for the job? Duncan makes a valid point. Your perspective changes depending on the political orientation of the subject. Quite stunningly so and you seem unaware of the fact. As for the assessment, I think it's far from certain. I rather think that Patel is the type of politician needed to kick some real world sanity into the Home Office in particular and the Civil Service in general. Goodness knows all the previous ones with the previous experience in opposition that you see as essential have mostly done a pretty dismal and at best reactive job. The Civil Service is essential, but it's a pretty appalling, self-centered, obsessive, and self-righteous organisation full of inertia that has no wish to change. Whether or not she was the best or only candidate I doubt, but she could have been. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 13:52   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

>> Duncan makes a valid point. Your perspective changes depending on the political orientation of the >> subject. Quite stunningly so and you seem unaware of the fact. I refer my Honourable Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November last.... www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=27411&m=597616 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 15:54   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Duncan

>> I refer my Honourable Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November last.... >> >> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=27411&m=597616 Well dredged, sir! Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 12:32   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Haywain

"She's way out of her depth." I hope not - though I fear it is a very deep swamp that is being drained. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 14:04   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Lygonos

Or really big crocodiles are moving in... Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sun 1 Mar 20 16:35   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

newsthump.com/2020/03/01/im-not-a-bully-and-anyone-who-says-i-am-will-get-a-smack-in-the-mouth-warns-priti-patel/ Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 1 Mar 20 16:48   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Manatee

>> Patel's only previous office was foreign aid where she was sacked for going off on >> a frolic and being less than frank with the PM when accounting for what she'd >> done. >> >> She's way out of her depth. You might have a point. Not for nothing is the Home Office regarded as one of the great offices of state. A reasonable starting qualification is some relevant ministerial experience if such people are available. Perhaps they weren't, given the 'loyalty' requirement in the Conservative party. Dominic's version of loyalty seems more like fascism to me. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 3 Mar 20 10:41   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Roger.

I've met her and in that pre-election scenario she was utterly charming and down to earth - not stuck-up at all. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 10:47   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

>> I've met her and in that pre-election scenario she was utterly charming and down to >> earth - not stuck-up at all. I don't think that helps greatly. Much coverage over weekend says she is charming until 'crossed'. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Mar 20 at 10:48 Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 11:10   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

>> she is charming until 'crossed'. Which is another way of saying that she is a bully. "Agree with me or I'll be mean to you". If it's true, then it's damning. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 12:58   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Zero

She is a typical management type. Managers need to be persuasive, decisive and lead. Good managers do that and carry their staff with them. Poor managers think persuasion is shouting bullying threatening and being aggressive and carry no-one with them and get eff all achieved. Seen loads of that type in the IT game. Not sure where Pritti falls in that league. Gosh I am sure - Sod it, yes I know her her type. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 13:03   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - No FM2R

The difference between managing and enforcing the rules. A growing blight in what is already a panorama of incompetence within management. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 13:33   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Manatee

There's decisive and decisive. I used to work in a FTSE100 company where under different headings I accounted to 3 board level people monthly. A couple of them reflected the 'old' culture whereby decisions were all too easily made. Whatever the problem, and the plan to find a solution, they would typically have an immediate answer - missing out everything between "there's a problem" and "this is the solution". It was OK once I figured out that, whilst it was unwise to argue, I didn't actually have to do it as long as I could explain the following month what I had done instead. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 17:43   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - BiggerBadderDave

I discovered Pritt stick in the late 70s. Fantastic. No more glue all over the place. I loved the smell of it. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 3 Mar 20 17:56   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Zero

New civil service motto I think Stick it up pritt Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 23 May 20 17:16   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

>> I don't think that helps greatly. Much coverage over weekend says she is charming until >> 'crossed'. I was reminded of this when she took the daily press conference the other day. Her tone with questioners, or at least some of them, was rude and patronising. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 23 May 20 22:21   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Haywain

"Her tone with questioners, or at least some of them, was rude and patronising." Which is hardly surprising considering the standards of the questions and the questioners. I think the ministers have shown remarkable tolerance. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 23 Apr 20 13:11   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - Bromptonaut

Not seen it covered elsewhere but the New European is reporting that Priti Patel's Immigration Bill has been pulled from forthcoming Second Reading debate: www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/government-shelves-priti-patel-s-immigration-bill-house-of-commons-1-6616651 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 23 Apr 20 13:39   Sir Philip Rutnam resigns - smokie

It would have looked a little ungrateful, to say the least Last edited by: smokie on Thu 23 Apr 20 at 13:39 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 4 Mar 21 18:11   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Bromptonaut

It's being reported that agreement has been reached and that Patel and possibly Johnson will not therefore be called as witnesses in Rutnam's claim for constructive dismissal. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781 £340k plus his costs. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 4 Mar 21 at 18:14 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 4 Mar 21 18:31   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - No FM2R

I wouldn't draw much in the way of conclusions from that. It is usually the way simply to avoid the process. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 4 Mar 21 19:07   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Zero

Almost certainly paid to avoid petty patel and BoJo being called for evidence and all the press and muckraking that goes with it Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 11:33   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - No FM2R

>> Almost certainly paid to avoid petty patel and BoJo being called for evidence and all >> the press and muckraking that goes with it Absolutely. And almost certainly accepted by Rutnam for similar reasons. Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 4 Mar 21 22:47   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Bromptonaut

>> I wouldn't draw much in the way of conclusions from that. It is usually the >> way simply to avoid the process. The proximity of a hearing makes the parties focus. As soon as the clerk calls the case and Counsel, to pinch words from Horace Rumpole, get on their hind legs costs go through the roof. And if witnesses have thought they could stretch the truth the prospect of the oath also focusses. Listing cases is a bummer of a job. List too many on the basis that 80% will settle and the overloaded Judge chews your head and so do Counsel who are missing tea at home. List too few so the Judge is on the golf course or tending his roses by lunchtime and admin chew your head. Hobson's Choice. Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 07:10   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Lygonos

>> I wouldn't draw much in the way of conclusions from that. It is usually the way simply to avoid the process. Perhaps, but the Govt's own report confirmed she was a bully - that BoJo chose to ignore, and make up his own findings leading to the resignation of the report's author - would be damning in court after cross examination of said author. Govt would have lost. Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 5 Mar 21 at 07:13 Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 11:31   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - No FM2R

>>Govt would have lost. Perhaps, but for some reason Rutnam and his team settled so they obviously didn't have 100% confidence in a 100% triumph.. The process rarely delivers a clean winner, the fallout and collateral damage can be considerable. Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 14:01   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Lygonos

If the payout is better than an award from a tribunal it would be a no-brainer. Also Rutnam no doubt is looking at potential directorships - perhaps an air of discretion (albeit on the back of a big story!) is more helpful? Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 14:07   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - tyrednemotional

I've said much the same before.... Payments from tribunals are, or at least were, capped (at not a particularly high level), but I understood Rutnam was proceeding under "Whistleblowing" rules, which would have removed that cap. £340K is, I suspect far more than he might have got for constructive dismissal or similar, I'm not sure about the whistleblowing approach (though getting a result under the latter always looked a bit tenuous to me). Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 14:15   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - No FM2R

>>Also Rutnam no doubt is looking at potential directorships - perhaps an air of discretion (albeit on the back of a big story!) is more helpful? You would think so, a court case would most certainly have not helped. Though I'd say already more has been publicised about this than would be seen as ideal. Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 15:17   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - smokie

I think I'd call it hush money rather than compensation... Tax free too, that's quite a few years salary he just got. Didn't they decide this week to no pursue the capped payments thing? (Was going to be £90k IIRC). Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 15:27   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - No FM2R

>>I think I'd call it hush money rather than compensation I think you'd actually find that the case would have had significant negative impact on Rutnam and *all* he would have got out of it was money. It would have hurt his reputation, it would have called into question his competence, commitment and loyalty, and would have done him no good going forwards. He was probably *mostly* in the right, though he probably behaved badly in some areas, he probably was failing in some areas, Patel is almost certainly a bad manager, Patel almost certainly did wrong things. With this agreement there will be an assumption that he was in the right, that he ultimately did the grown-up thing, he got some money, the Government doesn't have to go through the trial, a bunch of acrimonious muck-raking is avoided, and everybody walks away to fight another day. Calling it "hush money" is overly simplistic. Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 15:36   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Zero

>> I think I'd call it hush money rather than compensation... >> >> Tax free too, that's quite a few years salary he just got. Not really how much do you think a very senior civil servant earns (inc pension) He got well less than three years total remuneration. Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 15:44   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - No FM2R

Rutnam basic salary will have been around £175k - £200k. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 5 Mar 21 at 15:45 Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 15:54   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - smokie

About £200k (data is available here tinyurl.com/y89dxve9 ) which for a normal person would mean take home of about £117k so equivalent to about 3 years money. Forgetting the pension of course. Not bad though. Last edited by: smokie on Fri 5 Mar 21 at 16:52 Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 15:59   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - Lygonos

£190-195k on govt page Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 5 Mar 21 16:55   Sir Philip Rutnam Settles his ET Claim - smokie

Sorry I messed up the link, which I've corrected and was to the official spreadsheet of their salaries. That has the range you mention but that was Sept 19 so around £200k was probably about right by the time he left. Reply to this message | Report message