The ongoing stupidity of Home Secretary Priti Patel
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
The civil service union has asked the High Court to overrule Johnson's decision to keep a bully in his cabinet.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Priti Patel reaches £340,000 settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam
Former permanent secretary sued government over alleged bullying by home secretary
oh dear, be paying this herself will she?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
"...Under pressure to disclose.."? If she's using taxpayers money it should be automatically transparent how much she's spaffed up the wall to save her face.Priti Patel reaches £340,000 settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam
Former permanent secretary sued government over alleged bullying by home secretarywww.theguardian.com
oh dear, be paying this herself will she?
philosophical
Well-Known Member
I imagine she will say the settlement is merely to get rid of an irritating distraction allowing her to.............
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
I wonder if she'll get the same roasting/ calls for resignation as Nicola Sturgeon has had...
splonkydoo
Well-Known Member
"...Under pressure to disclose.."? If she's using taxpayers money it should be automatically transparent how much she's spaffed up the wall to save her face.
View attachment 257298
Think it comes to a total of two hundred thousand and eight sixty three and five thousand pounds.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Or, looked at another way, the annual income tax revenue from between 3 to 4 hundred workers on minimum wage.
No doubt they'd be chuffed.
Treacle Toes
Time
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Not necessarily - if he'd carried on and received less in award than he'd been offered now he'd have been liable for all costs.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
That amount is tax free, so double your timescale, if it is correct. Plus he still gets his pension, which I am led to believe is a bit more shiney than my nan’s was...
Last edited:
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yeah, because calling out a bully is bullying
andysays
Love and solidarity
TBF, that idea has been trotted out a few times on Urban over the years...Yeah, because calling out a bully is bullying
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Oh, it's the classic counter-attack - it's not even original.
eatmorecheese
He's fallen out of the car again
Yeah, because calling out a bully is bullying
The "Whoever smelt it, dealt it" gambit. That's the level.
tony.c
Well-Known Member
Channel 4 News said the total payout will be £370,000 including £30,000 in legal costs.
Last edited:
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Establishment stalwart gives establishment chance to bury scandal for money shock
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
The government does not accept liability, yet throws nigh on half a million pounds around, surely a matter for the public accounts committee???
tony.c
Well-Known Member
He was taking the case to an Employment Tribunal. The maximum compensation an employment tribunal can recommend is one year's gross pay, or £88,519, whichever is lower.
So he would only have got £88,519.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I am really not sure that a tribunal finding would have been any more damaging than the Government paying out a fairly hefty settlement. As others have pointed out, if this had gone to tribunal, and the government had been found against, the outcome would have been considerably less financially adverse...so clearly it was worth the several hundred thousand pounds to them not to have the specifics aired, and clearly they thought that the chances of prevailing at tribunal were not good. I cannot see any other reason why the most confrontational department in a hideously entitled government would have paid out a penny if they thought there was any way of getting out of it.
So we can quite reasonably take it from this settlement - regardless of the Government's pathetic attempt at spin - to be a vindication of the claims that Patel was bullying staff.
And there it stops. Because we simply don't have a mechanism that allows a government so shameless in its efforts to avoid accountability to be held to account. Even the voters don't get a look-in for another 4 years, and from past experience, it doesn't appear that even they are particularly interested in calling out this kind of behaviour, let alone the corruption and ineptitude that has characterised the other aspects of the Government's behaviour.
I despair.
So we can quite reasonably take it from this settlement - regardless of the Government's pathetic attempt at spin - to be a vindication of the claims that Patel was bullying staff.
And there it stops. Because we simply don't have a mechanism that allows a government so shameless in its efforts to avoid accountability to be held to account. Even the voters don't get a look-in for another 4 years, and from past experience, it doesn't appear that even they are particularly interested in calling out this kind of behaviour, let alone the corruption and ineptitude that has characterised the other aspects of the Government's behaviour.
I despair.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I keep seeing this thread title and thinking 'She's not stupid, she's mean and nasty'. Don't think she would have got to where she is by being stupid.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
when I was little I thought politicians must have some special qualities which set them apart from the mass of people. But as I get aulder I know that what sets them apart are their colossal egos and colossal stupidity.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The current cabinet doesn't really bear that theory out tbh.
Similar threads
