View previous topic | View next topic

Priti Awful

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

PDR
1366010.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:43 am Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
Perhaps they have photos of Johnson involved with a donkey, some bolognese sauce, some rubber bands and a gimp mask.


That's an outrageous allegation

It would be Brown Sauce - none of that EU-invented stuff!

PDR

 
tetsabb
1366036.  Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:00 am Reply with quote

Of course, silly me. Though the photos could date back to when he was pro-Europe...

 
Alfred E Neuman
1366078.  Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:49 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
If you are saying that there is no disparity between the handling of this story and how it would be presented in the media if the Home Secretary were male then I disagree.

Nope, thatís not what I said. I pointed out that by choosing to phrase the assertion and question the way you did was sexist.


What you said:
Celebaelin wrote:
If a male cabinet minister had been retained in his position after being condemned for breaching the ministerial code there would be a tumult of cries of sexist bias, insensitivity and worse.



You could have said:
Celebaelin didnít wrote:
If another cabinet minister had been retained in his position after being condemned for breaching the ministerial code there would be a tumult of cries of bias, insensitivity and worse.


You could have said:
Celebaelin also didnít wrote:
If a non-white cabinet minister had been retained in his position after being condemned for breaching the ministerial code there would be a tumult of cries of racist bias, insensitivity and worse.


Your choosing her gender as the differentiating factor, makes your comment sexist. If you donít see that, or if you do see the point Iím making but disagree with it, thatís fine. But try not to put words in my mouth, and just stick to what I actually said.

 
CB27
1366081.  Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:00 am Reply with quote

I seem to recall back in 2010, part of the reason some Lib Dems accepted a coalition with the Tories was because of Gordon Brown leadership.

While some tried to question Brown's policies and principles, the biggest issue I saw on the ground at the time that people had with him were reports of his management style. In the papers they liked to stoke up the "bigoted woman" and personality issues, but both with people at the door, and Lib Dem campaign members at the time the main worry seemed to be about his personal ability to lead.

Amazing to see the difference in people's attitudes to leadership skills in just ten years.

 
dr.bob
1366089.  Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:09 am Reply with quote

Richard Osman put it succinctly on twitter:

Quote:
If you can't do your job without bullying people then you can't do your job.


https://twitter.com/richardosman/status/1330099446978318336

 
Celebaelin
1366092.  Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:24 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
But try not to put words in my mouth, and just stick to what I actually said.

I started with the word 'If' so I wasn't putting words in your mouth - yet again I was asking a question only this time it was of you specifically. You answered it but not without leveling another unfounded accusation - your criticism is not a valid one.

I will happily accept that there could be other reasons why the Home Secretary is not being criticised to the extent that John Bercow was under vaguely similar circumstances. However I ascribe this differential not to her innate sympathetic nature as a clearly warm and caring human being or to the beastliness of lazy Civil Servants but instead to the abject terror with which most people react at the possibility of being accused of sexism - this is a kind of sexism all of its own and I am fed up with people being cowed by it. Without having seen or heard explicit statements to this effect I suspect that some Civil Servants share my point of view to the extent that senior government employees who have encountered PP have felt motivated to resign without their being belaboured by the accusations of inappropriate conduct towards colleagues which are following her around from department to department.

I re-iterate however, since her execrable conduct is not being denied - at least not on this board, that my issue is with the kid glove reporting of this story compared with the half dozen or so pieces I cited which were critical of nasty old John Bercow for bullying. If you feel inclined to persist in informing me of ways I could avoid offending your sensibilities on this matter then feel free to do so but I stand by what I have written (but not your opinion of it) and can only say that I do not believe that I am being unfair or in any way biased in expressing my beliefs; as on most issues I try to avoid partisan standpoints. If what I assert is true then it is not sexist it is an accurate observation; if what I assert is not true (and fear of being accused of sexism does not actually underlie the lack of adverse comment in the media beyond the statement of facts) then what is at the root of this lack of journalistic criticism of Priti Patel?

 
crissdee
1366105.  Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:37 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Richard Osman put it succinctly on twitter:

Quote:
If you can't do your job without bullying people then you can't do your job.




Not that it exonerates Ms Patel, nor would I seek to do so, but I would point out that "bullying people" is pretty much the job description of an NCO in a training battalion....

 
dr.bob
1366185.  Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:44 am Reply with quote

Not really an office environment though, is it? ;-)

But I take your point.

 
PDR
1366198.  Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:15 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:

Not that it exonerates Ms Patel, nor would I seek to do so, but I would point out that "bullying people" is pretty much the job description of an NCO in a training battalion....


Actually no, surprisingly. The army are quite specific about the line between assertive encouragement and bullying. Assertive encouragement may involve shouting, abuse and physical contact but it remains bullying as long as it is impersonal and dispassionate. As soon as anything becomes personal and targeted it's bullying (which is a court martial issue). This is now a significant element in the training of NCOs are given before being qualified for a training battalion post.

PDR

 
jaygeemack
1379541.  Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:22 pm Reply with quote

Priti Patel has broken the law again. She tried to deport a witness to a murder in an immigration detention centre to stop him giving evidence. How can this woman still hold the position of Home Secretary?

 
suze
1379998.  Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:03 pm Reply with quote

In the last couple of days it has become even clearer what this government of ours is like.

Johnny Mercer MP (Con, Plymouth Moor View) decided to resign his junior ministerial position as Minister for Veterans, apparently because of the government's faiilure to carry out a manifesto commitment in his area. Having decided on Tuesday that he would resign on Wednesday, he says that he was told by txt msg that he needn't bother resigning because he was sacked.

Since then, he's given an interview to Times Radio in which he says that the Johnson government is "the most awful environment Iíve ever worked in", that it is a "cesspit" and that "almost nobody tells the truth". Mr Mercer's own record for conduct while in ministerial office is not unblemished and so these comments might be a bit pot:kettle, but he clearly doesn't trust Boris Johnson as far as he could throw a fairly heavy man.

Even so, he has neither resigned the Conservative whip nor had it revoked. (Were I PM, he would have had it revoked.) With friends like these ...

 
Jenny
1380053.  Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:09 am Reply with quote

Never having been remotely Conservative (with a capital C, and not very conservative in some respects even with a small c) this surprises me not at all.

 
CB27
1380055.  Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:31 am Reply with quote

There was a time when people in democracies could claim some level of moral high ground because when politicians were caught in some scandal or other they would be forced out by their party in the knowledge that if they didn't they would be voted out.

I'm not saying that politicians or parties were themselves honest or honourable enough to do the right thing for their country or people, but self preservation meant having to get rid of anyone caught in a scandal.

However, in the last few years we've seen a complete change of tactic by politicians almost globally, as they've embraced the notion that people vote along "tribal" lines regardless of policies, honesty, competence, or decency.

It's easy enough to blame people for voting for a party's name only, regardless of what it stands for, but what changed society so much to get to this point?

 
suze
1380090.  Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:53 pm Reply with quote

Today we have, of all people, Dominic Cummings telling anyone who will listen what a rabble this government is.

Mr Cummings also says that it was not he who leaked the second lockdown, a leak about which Boris Johnson was apparently very cross. Now OK, to some extent he would say that wouldn't he, but does the finger of suspicion now point back at Michael Gove?

 
suze
1380250.  Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:15 am Reply with quote

As Mr Cummings makes it plain that there is plenty more about Mr Johnson which he might tell the world in the coming weeks, some sections of the media are very confident about a story which didn't even come from Cummings.

In October, he is reported to have said to the Inner Cabinet "No more fucking lockdowns, let the bodies pile high in their thousands". There have been two more lockdowns since he said that, and I fully expect there to be another before the summer is through.

Since the meeting in which he is claimed to have made that remark was not a formal Cabinet meeting it was not minuted, and Mr Johnson insists that he said no such thing. Well he would say that, wouldn't he.

However, both the Daily Mail and the BBC have sources, probably sources within the Cabinet, who are adamant that he did. Neither organ has said in so many words "See you in court", but they make it abundantly clear that they will not be retracting.

The usual "rules" don't seem to be apply to Mr Johnson, who is apparently made of Teflon. What's more, the story has broken on a Monday - which is the best day of the week for such a story to break if you are a politician, because you're six days away from a new editiion of the Sunday Times.

But if it should be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Johnson did say what is alleged, is it fairly close to a resignation matter?

 

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group