| Non-motoring > Sticking with Prit? | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: CGNorwich | Replies: 57 |
|
New Thu 19 Nov 20 23:24
Sticking with Prit? - CGNorwich
|
|
Just loved the title of today’s Newscast Podcast. Well will she survive? |
|
New Thu 19 Nov 20 23:36
Sticking with Prit? - Lygonos
|
|
Depends if BoJo's fiancée likes her or not I guess. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 07:25
Sticking with Prit? - Rudedog
|
|
Love to see what her Spitting Image puppet would be... Personally I have to put my fingers in my ears as soon as she starts to speak, but apparently the grass root Tories love her. If she broke the code then she should go like any other minister but don't hold our breath... |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 08:27
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
| Bojo will stick with her, sometime later she will say bad things about PNN, Bojo will send her out the front door with her cardboard box. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 08:59
Sticking with Prit? - Duncan
|
|
>> Bojo will stick with her, sometime later she will say bad things about PNN, Bojo >> will send her out the front door with her cardboard box. tinyurl.com/y55ah4xf There are those who claim that photo was set up. Good view, dead in line with the front door. Surely that image can be photoshopped so that it is Pritti coming out of No. 10 with the cardboard box? Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 09:01
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 08:30
Sticking with Prit? - henry k
|
|
>> Love to see what her Spitting Image puppet would be... >> www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfddokPIu8Q |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 09:10
Sticking with Prit? - Lygonos
|
| Gove's nut-cheeks and knob-nose are epic. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 09:20
Sticking with Prit? - Rudedog
|
|
Another MP I warn my wife not believe a single that comes out of his mouth.. Smarmy attitude.. Very slippery. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 11:04
Sticking with Prit? - smokie
|
| I used to think the same but Gove has actually been almost impressive from time to time, unlike many of them. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 11:17
Sticking with Prit? - Fullchat
|
| Bullying or positive robust management? |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 11:49
Sticking with Prit? - zippy
|
|
There is no place for bullying in the workplace. There is absolutely nothing wrong with robust management and there is a gulf between the two. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 11:56
Sticking with Prit? - smokie
|
|
Seems Boris is OK with it. "Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs Patel" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076 |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:04
Sticking with Prit? - Rudedog
|
|
The report author has resigned in protest. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:06
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
|
>> Seems Boris is OK with it. >> >> "Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs Patel" >> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076 Oh dear, he has no idea how to manage this kind of thing does he. Employ bloke to do job, trash his work in public, bloke resigns confirming whole thing is a whitewash. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:05
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>.......there is a gulf between the two. Yes. But differing individual perception, goals, styles, capabilities, personality and perspectives can make a right mess of a clear view. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:03
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
I would say that she is an extremely hard working person totally committed to achieving what she believes to be right. The people quoted in the media who highly praise her would also appear to be hard working ambitious people. Her attitude / character could bring extreme frustration with people who she perceived as not working as hard, not committed to the same goals and/or glued to an existing rule based environment and perhaps not noticeably ambitious. Any slow moving, unimaginative, process-driven or inefficient civil servant could be likely to drive her to frustration, even anger, and a total disregard for that person. The fault though is not the individual. They have been selected, trained and groomed to fit into the current environment. It is not their fault that some now want the environment changed. Putting her in charge of department operated by the Civil Service will pretty much always result in similar complaints I should imagine. The Civil Service undoubtedly needs to significantly change but trying to combine hitting it with a hammer while also trying to be sensitive to its feelings is never likely to work. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 12:07
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:12
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
| There is a breed of upper middle managers who believe they need to appear strong to get further up. However they have no idea how to be strong, and think that loud bullying abusive is strong and forget that the bullied and abused are actually the ones required to carry out the work. They dont of course. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:17
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>>.....think that loud bullying abusive is strong You're quite correct, of course. But I don't think she is one of those. People are generally fairly consistent in their view of such people. In this case the view seems to change depending on the type of person commenting. I think it is a total lack of patience with those that she perceives to be obstacles or at least unhelpful to or unsupportive of her chosen goals, direction and speed. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 12:17
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:24
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
|
>> >>.....think that loud bullying abusive is strong >> I think it is a total lack of patience with those that she perceives to >> be obstacles or at least unhelpful to or unsupportive of her chosen goals, direction and >> speed. At the very least then she lacks to skills to be effectively persuasive. Plus of course I have no doubt the civil service is designed to be obsequiously obstructive. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:32
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>> Plus of course I have no doubt the civil service is designed to be obsequiously >> obstructive. Exactly that combination I should think. Though I'd be more damning than "lacks the skills". Lacks the understanding, the interpersonal skills, and doesn't even believe that they are necessary because she is overwhelmed with how right she is. And since she hasn't learned yet, I doubt that she will ever do so. Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Nov 20 at 03:34
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:33
Sticking with Prit? - Fullchat
|
|
In my previous career, laterally, challenging poor performance and behaviour was often met with counter claims of bullying. And sometimes you just haven't the time or patience to be arguing the toss just to be awkward. Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 12:35
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:37
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>> In my previous career, laterally, challenging poor performance and behaviour was often met >> with counter claims of bullying. And if the employer blinks once it will forever be the first recourse of the challenged. But there's ways and means. For example you'd think that I of all people would be subject to such accusations. Yet, touch wood, it has never happened. You simply have to value people, irrespective of their skills, suitability, performance or relevance. It is very rarely the employee's fault. Not never, but rarely. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 12:38
|
|
New Tue 8 Dec 20 21:17
Sticking with Prit? - MD
|
|
>>You simply have to value people, irrespective of their skills, suitability, performance or relevance. It is very rarely the employee's fault. Not never, but rarely. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement Mark. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 12:50
Sticking with Prit? - Terry
|
|
There will always be tensions between senior civil servants and politicians. Senior civil servants are typically intellectually and academically very high calibre. This is achieved through: - avoiding error and criticism - long term perspectives, not short term expediency - building mutually beneficial relationships within the civil service - very secure employment rights - as any large family seeking to support and protect their own Politicians: - often fail to match the intellectual skills of their senior civil servants - are focussed on the short term (a week is a long time in politics) - are under intrusive media scrutiny and pressure to deliver manifesto promises etc - know their their own career can be history in an instant - are ambitious for quick progression (the next election may be their last) Priti Patel strikes me as someone who could be very "shouty" if frustrated in her efforts to get things done at her pace. Whether this constitutes bullying I don't know - perhaps it depends on who she was being shouty at! |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 13:11
Sticking with Prit? - tyrednemotional
|
|
>> >> But I don't think she is one of those. People are generally fairly consistent in >> their view of such people. In this case the view seems to change depending on >> the type of person commenting. >> There are people in management who are quite adroit at managing their upwards relationships, and the majority of peer-to-peer ones as all "sweetness and light" but are ferocious bullies of those (directly or indirectly) below them. I've seen it a few times; sadly in my experience it has mostly been women (and I know that sounds sexist, but it is my experience - I've worked with and for a good few excellent women managers) and, given the dichotomy of views resulting, creates an enormous amount of workplace stress at the lower level. The atmosphere generated by one such occasion was a key factor in deciding I'd had enough of the world of work (the opportunity to exit lucratively once I'd decided that was another ;-) ) Coincidentally I was working at the time with a newly-recruited woman senior manager, who was the antithesis of the above, and we got on like a house on fire. A few months after I had left, and was at home, I got an email from the company's corporate lawyers I'd worked with for a good few years, delightedly informing me she'd been "bin-bagged" over lunch. Apparently, she'd started giving somebody major grief in HQ - but it just happened to be the HR Director! "Do you know who I am?" - followed by immediate removal from the premises with desk contents in a bin-bag. Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 13:13
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 15:12
Sticking with Prit? - Rudedog
|
|
An official inquiry has indicated that something...bullying/harassment went on. BJ's response is 'nothing to see here.. move on'. It's not good enough. It seems clear to me that BJ fears more these colleagues being stacked and moving to the back benches where they can stick the knife in or expose the skeletons. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 15:41
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>>It's not good enough. You're right, it is not. >>It seems clear to me that BJ fears more these colleagues being stacked and moving to the back benches where they can stick the knife in or expose the skeletons. But I don't think that's the reason. I think it's more about surrounding himself with loud, gobby, controversial people who can attract all the crap and then be kicked out when they're beyond their sell-by date. Look at all the s*** that Cummings was blamed for which Johnson at least endorsed and perhaps wanted/initiated in the first place. And yet he managed to get rid of the whole lot by pushing Cummings out. I think a primary tactic from Johnson is to line up scapegoats. I think we should realise that he is not suffering from being scared / blackmailed / manipulated by these people, or his partner, he is just a huge fan of lining up other people for the fall. We won't get shot of Johnson or similar politicians until we look with open eyes. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 15:35
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>>There are people in management who are quite adroit at managing their upwards relationships.....but are ferocious bullies of those (directly or indirectly) below them. Only if their manager is crap. A good manager is aware of how his direct report's direct reports feel, perform and work. How else would you know who to promote should the direct report leave? How else could you gauge how well your direct report is performing? Equally if one cares about one's career one needs to understand the competition. And that means understanding how your peers manage both their reports and their boss. Certainly managing upwards is important. But, for example, part of managing me would be to understand how I expect people to be managed. If I was a crap manager then blowing smoke up my a*** would be sufficient. I cannot say that I ever noticed any particular behaviour attributable to mainly men or mainly women as managers. As people they tend to manage personal relationships differently so consequently the more they allow their personal life to encroach upon the workplace then the more likely those differences are to come through. But since allowing overlap between work and personal is fundamentally wrong, I have little sympathy. The scary thing is how quickly one weak link can corrupt an entire management structure. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 16:39
Sticking with Prit? - tyrednemotional
|
|
>> Only if their manager is crap. >> ...if there were few of them, you'd still be a burger-flipper. ;-) >> >> I cannot say that I ever noticed any particular behaviour attributable to mainly men or >> mainly women as managers. >> ...I wasn't trying to state a generalism (I thought that was reasonably clear) simply relating my own experience. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 17:11
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>> >> >> Only if their manager is crap. >> >> >> >> ...if there were few of them, you'd still be a burger-flipper. ;-) >> Ain't that the truth. Though it'd have been pulling pints not flipping burgers. >> >> I cannot say that I ever noticed any particular behaviour attributable to mainly men >> or >> >> mainly women as managers. >> >> >> >> ...I wasn't trying to state a generalism (I thought that was reasonably clear) simply relating >> my own experience. No rocks being thrown. Certainly not intentionally. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 18:04
Sticking with Prit? - Terry
|
|
None of us have actually seen the report and many comments are therefore really based on preconceived political bias or gender stereotypes. The real problem of course is the failure to make the report public which simply provides scope for conjecture rather than an informed opinion. I think Boris has got this wrong - a bit like the delays on the Russia/Brexit report. The problem doesn't go away, it merely reinforces suspicion. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 20:08
Sticking with Prit? - Kevin
|
|
>None of us have actually seen the report.. Part of it has been made public. It would be interesting to see the rest of it to put everything into context because it sounds as if her departments senior mandarins were either uncooperative or even deliberately obstructive. (My highlight) Findings of the Independent Adviser Sir Alex Allan was asked by the Prime Minister to provide advice about whether the facts established by the Cabinet Office in relation to the conduct of the Home Secretary showed adherence to the Ministerial Code. Sir Alex’s advice is that “The Ministerial Code says “Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect.” I believe Civil Servants particularly Senior Civil Servants should be expected to handle robust criticism but should not have to face behaviour that goes beyond that. The Home Secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action orientated and can be direct. 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 evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals. “The Ministerial Code says that “Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code…”. Definitions of harassment concern comments or actions relating to personal characteristics and there is no evidence from the Cabinet Office’s work of any such behaviour by the Home Secretary. The definition of bullying adopted by the Civil Service accepts that legitimate, reasonable and constructive criticism of a worker’s performance will not amount to bullying. It defines bullying as intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition. “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. In addition, no feedback was given to the Home Secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed. “My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her.” |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 20:30
Sticking with Prit? - tyrednemotional
|
|
Re: the BIB: On reading that, Philip Ruttnam immediately disputed it, stating that he had personally raised her behaviour with her on a number of occasions. Under the circumstances, you might take the Mandy Rice-Davis stance of "well he would, wouldn't he", but given the fact that he resigned over the matter, I find it gobsmacking that the inquiry wouldn't even have considered it, as he wasn't asked to provide any input! (Of course, the fact that there is an outstanding tribunal/court case might be a factor in that, but given I understand that it is for whistleblowing (much higher potential payout) not constructive dismissal, I'm not sure there is a conflict.) I think the odds on him getting an out-of-court settlement have hardened somewhat (unless he opts for his day in court, which now looks like a needless gesture) TBH the wording looks like sugaring the pill, the resignation of Sir Alex Allan is rather more indicative of the balance. |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 21:51
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>>Philip Ruttnam immediately disputed it, stating that he had personally raised her behaviour with her on a number of occasions I'm sure he did. It is unfortunate that Prit could not see past his lack of performance, insolence or incompetence and deal with him professionally. It is one's measure of oneself which is the standard for behaviour, not one's assessment of the other person. One does not get involved in pssing contests with Senior Civil Servants. One will always, and I do mean always, lose. Back to basics and use their own standards, processes and procedures to hoist them by their own petard. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 21:53
|
|
New Sun 22 Nov 20 09:31
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Re: the BIB: >> >> On reading that, Philip Ruttnam immediately disputed it, stating that he had personally raised her >> behaviour with her on a number of occasions. >> >> Under the circumstances, you might take the Mandy Rice-Davis stance of "well he would, wouldn't >> he", but given the fact that he resigned over the matter, I find it gobsmacking >> that the inquiry wouldn't even have considered it, as he wasn't asked to provide any >> input! Rutnam was saying at the time of his resignation that he'd attempted to speak to her about the treatment of staff. The Guardian is now reporting that Alex Allan wanted to speak to Rutnam but was blocked because of the ongoing Tribunal proceedings. Allan wouldn't have had the career he has, Private Secretary to the PM for five years, Perm Sec of a large department and then Chair of the Joint Intelligence if he wasn't skilled at dealing with conflicting evidence etc. Does anybody really believe he could not have interviewed Rutnam and given appropriate weight to what was said? |
|
New Sun 22 Nov 20 09:57
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>>The Guardian is now reporting that Alex Allan wanted >> to speak to Rutnam but was blocked because of the ongoing Tribunal proceedings. Link to Guardian: www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/21/officials-blocked-access-to-witness-in-priti-patel-inquiry |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 21:20
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
|
>> including >> some occasions of shouting and swearing. counter productive, unacceptable, shows lack of control* and an inability to communicate or motivate effectively* *Unless done deliberately for effect, It doesn't work! |
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 21:54
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>> counter productive, unacceptable, shows lack of control* and an inability to communicate or motivate effectively* 100%. It is a sign of an inadequate person in an inappropriate role. >> *Unless done deliberately for effect, ... in a very limited set of circumstances. Like when someone on the internet is wrong. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Nov 20 at 21:59
|
|
New Fri 20 Nov 20 21:47
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>>It would be interesting to see the rest of it to put everything into context because it sounds as if her departments senior mandarins were either uncooperative or even deliberately obstructive. Utterly not relevant in the assessment of Prit. Unless one believes that the Ministerial Code only applies when dealing with someone one decides doing their job the way one wants it done. The summary of those comments is that Prit does not follow the Ministerial Code unless everybody does what she says at the speed and in the style she wants it. That she has zero interpersonal sensitivity and no sense of how people feel around her. That unless someone takes her to one side, sits her down and gives her the J&J then she is incapable of improvement or self-assessment. That is the standard of a low-level, likely to be unsuccessful, factory team leader. Not some high-flying politician. If *any* manager of mine had ever received that summary, irrespective of the detail, then whilst they might still have a career direction it would not be up. The fact that the Civil Service are by and large a bunch of unimaginative gits that will protect their beloved status quo in the face of any argument or incentive and like nothing more to stand their with their sulky, teenage pouts stamping their feet in petulance is beyond the scope of assessing Prit. The Ministerial Code says that “Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect.” And she didn't. I don't think one needs to go any further. There were available avenues if she believed that others were not behaving appropriately. However, being good at your job is not one of the criteria for "behaving appropriately". That is a matter for performance management which includes agreed goals and formal assessment/feedback. So as a strategist she is quite possibly excellent. As a manager of people she should not be allowed out on her own. It is a measure of Johnson that this fact does not bother him. |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 09:36
Sticking with Prit? - CGNorwich
|
| I think one of Patel’s problems is how she looks. She naturally just looks so smug and superior. I think that our judgement of people owes a lot more to their appearance than we would like to believe |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 09:48
Sticking with Prit? - Lygonos
|
|
Add to that a lack of demonstrable empathy. |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 12:23
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
>>I think that our judgement of people owes a lot more to their appearance than we would like to believe Absolutely. Presentation is a huge thing. |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 12:46
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
| I never considered a smirk as presentation, but I guess it can be! |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 12:50
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
| Presentation is the whole package, and absolutely includes smirks and other facial expressions. |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 15:24
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I used to think the same but Gove has actually been almost impressive from time >> to time, unlike many of them. You know what? I broadly agree with that; he has the competence to deliver. I abhor what he did in Education removing coursework and winding the clock to exams only and the massive spread of academies with all the lack of accountability, potential for fraud and cronyism they bring. But he got it done. More to the point as successor to Grayling he made a pretty good Lord Chancellor. Unravelled most of his predecessor's dogma and useless gestures like the prison books ban. It's a pity May left him to warm the backbenches, he was far better than Truss. |
|
New Sat 21 Nov 20 15:53
Sticking with Prit? - Zero
|
|
>> You know what? I broadly agree with that; he has the competence to deliver. Maybe, but, he still appears like a slimy toady teachers pet. If I was Flashman, he'd be the first one I would roast. |
|
New Sun 22 Nov 20 10:21
Sticking with Prit? - CGNorwich
|
|
>> Maybe, but, he still appears like a slimy toady teachers pet. If I was Flashman, >> he'd be the first one I would roast. >> Kind of validates my theory that people are often judged by their looks rather than their actions. |
|
New Sun 22 Nov 20 10:37
Sticking with Prit? - zippy
|
|
>>academies and fraud. One that still hurts is a local group of half a dozen or so primary schools all run by a USA based organisation in cahoots with a UK based university. They were all forced to buy a software package from the US parent at a cost of hundreds of thousands for accounting that could have been done with a version of Sage Line 50 for a couple of thousand per school. >>Book bans. Wasn't this because authorities wanted to cut costs and feared drugs were smuggled in on the spine or paper impregnated with chemicals? Whatever the reason, an easy solution would have been to ensure all books were sourced from a few approved suppliers like WH Smiths, Waterstones, Amazon etc. |
|
New Sun 22 Nov 20 14:56
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Wasn't this because authorities wanted to cut costs and feared drugs were smuggled in on >> the spine or paper impregnated with chemicals? >> >> Whatever the reason, an easy solution would have been to ensure all books were sourced >> from a few approved suppliers like WH Smiths, Waterstones, Amazon etc. The specific ban on books was found to be unlawful in a ruling by Mr Justice Collins in December 2014: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3997.html It's a pretty short judgement and sets out the various rationales adopted by Grayling etc. The primary issue appears to be the prison regime and a political/policy decision to make it tougher. Although it was suggested that prisoners could purchase books there were in fact significant hurdles which made it difficult. Not least of these was the amount of money allowed to prisoners for purchase of personal items. When the applicant in the case suggested books being acquired from Amazon via her solicitor that was not allowed. Security was raised by Ministers later, including those like Nick Clegg who I suspect were appalled by the provision. It didn't persuade Collins J...... |
|
New Sat 5 Dec 20 17:27
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
Being her usual egregious self again: www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/04/windrush-victims-accuse-priti-patel-of-deeply-insulting-behaviour |
|
New Sat 5 Dec 20 20:46
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
I'm no fan of her ladyship, but the Windrush group seems to contain a fair amount of entitled princesses supported by a bunch of woke celebrities eager to signal their own virtue. "Priti Patel has been accused of “deeply insulting and patronising” behaviour by victims of the Windrush scandal after she branded those calling for deportation flights to be stopped as “do-gooding celebrities”." Why are the "victims of the Windrush scandal" finding it "“deeply insulting and patronising” that she's criticising the motivation of a bunch of celebrities? Ridiculous. And on this one I probably agree with Patel. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 5 Dec 20 at 20:48
|
|
New Sat 5 Dec 20 21:55
Sticking with Prit? - Kevin
|
|
And other relatives of folks caught up in the Windrush fiasco have complained that they find it insulting that their relative's situation is being conflated with that of convicted criminals. The son of one of them said: "Their treatment was, as the Home Secretary Priti Patel said this week, ‘a stain on our country’s history’ and shamed successive governments who presided over a flawed immigration system. So it makes my blood absolutely boil when I hear self-serving, virtue-signalling celebrities invoking the Windrush scandal in an attempt to stop the deportation of criminals, including child rapists and murderers." I can kinda see his point. Sadly, he doesn't have a bunch of lawyers and campaigners writing letters for him to sign so you won't see that in the Grauniad. Last edited by: Kevin on Sat 5 Dec 20 at 21:57
|
|
New Sat 5 Dec 20 22:01
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> So it makes my blood absolutely boil when I hear self-serving, virtue-signalling celebrities invoking the >> Windrush scandal in an attempt to stop the deportation of criminals, including child rapists and >> murderers." So how many of the deportees, or prospective deportees allowed to stay for now, were child rapists or murderers? |
|
New Sat 5 Dec 20 22:27
Sticking with Prit? - Kevin
|
| 42 |
|
New Sat 12 Dec 20 17:31
Sticking with Prit? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> 42 Well here's one who is not: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/12/public-figures-call-for-halt-osime-brown-deportation-priti-patel |
|
New Sat 12 Dec 20 17:39
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
"A spokesperson said Brown was convicted of robbery, attempted robbery and perverting the course of justice and sentenced to a total of five years’ detention" So not exactly trivial then? Oh no, hold on a minute..... "a crime he says he did not commit" No s***! Oh well, that's alright then. Can't be convicting anybody who says that they didn't commit the crime. I can get kicked out of here permanently for lighting a fire in the wrong place. A Chilean would be fined about £50. And that's how it should be. Their country, their rules. Robbing someone is a choice. Don't bother asking me to feel wounded for his s*** choices. He was happy with his choice until he realised that it wasn't without consequences. Then he remembered how unfair life was. People should be treated differently depending on how they behave. Bleeding hearts would be better spending their time helping those who make good choices, not defending those who did not. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 12 Dec 20 at 17:43
|
|
New Sat 12 Dec 20 17:55
Sticking with Prit? - No FM2R
|
|
Without offence, and no personal attack intended. I truly do not understand this mentality, usually found on more left wing people, that people should be shielded from the law. That they should not have to deal with consequences, that they should not be subject to restriction, that it is their right to do pretty much as they damned well please and be exempt from consequence. I cannot imagine you raised your children that way. It mostly seems to apply to foreign people, but also often to people that have made a lifetime of wrong choices. I accept that there are the disadvantaged, the abused, the left behind and the simply incompetent. But there are also the lousy, disgusting, leeches and parasites that only care about doing what ever tf they want but whine when punished. "Do as you likey"s being a prime example. All my life I have been judged on what I have done, good and bad. And I'm ok with that, it is as it should be. Getting kicked out of a country for breaking the law is NOT an injustice. If you don't like it, or life is going to be rough, even hazardous, then tough s***. You should have thought about that beforehand. I genuinely do not GAF and will happily put you on the boat / train /automobile myself. |
|
New Sun 13 Dec 20 00:01
Sticking with Prit? - Terry
|
|
We seem to value the human rights of miscreants far above the human rights of decent folk whose human rights have been abused. Totally bonkers logic. Some latitude for the odd minor offence, but repeated minor offences or those resulting prison sentences - no symathy - next plane home - no right of appeal. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
