Only an orange tinted person with a comb over from across the pond.
2 Likes
Yeah, different of course, but there are striking similarities, and the ability to get away with almost any misdemeanours is a notable one. Muddled incoherence masking cynical manipulation is another. Shameless moral turpitude too.
3 Likes
Wrong, not a duck, a black swan.
Kidding - heās just a chancer!
Itās always a very difficult area - seeking judicial intervention into governmental business. The concept of whether certain areas are justiciable has been increasingly relevant over the last 5 years or so.
In this instance, the claim was that Johnson must have mis-directed himself by finding that there had been no breach of the Ministerial Code notwithstanding the finding of the independent reviewer (Sir Alex Allan) that Patel had engaged in conduct that would constitute bullying. The argument was that Johnson must have concluded that because she was unaware her behaviour had caused people to feel harassed, intimidated or bullied, that she had not breached the Ministerial Code. It was this argument that the Court rejected. They concluded that there was no evidence Johnson had mis-directed himself. Effectively, Johnson accepted the findings of Sir Alex but because Patel had apologised, because she had adjusted her behaviour, and because the working relationships within the Home Office were now much improved (as reported by Sir Alex) that viewed as a whole, there had been no breach of the Ministerial Code. Effectively, Patel had properly addressed her conduct having been made aware that it was no acceptable.
1 Like
1 Like
Thanks, I did like the line that Johnson had not misdirected himself over what the word bullying meant in the ministerial code.
Has he actually read it?
Weasely lying gits
1 Like
Honestly, WTF!!!
1 Like
Just a thought. Are Goveās arms and hands a bit Pickfordesque?
Either that or the person behind him has put his arms round his side and is clapping for him, making him look like a right idiot.
Is Gove on the bag??
I hope thereās a good reason for making me look at that horrible man. Is he on coke? It might explain a few things.
There have been rumours. Unsubstantiated, of course.
Not just that, but isnāt it written into employment law?
@Kopstar might know that answer
No surprise.
An old colleague used to work there as a cleaner and said certain toilets were classed as no go areas at particular times so that they could deny any knowledge of it
1 Like
Indeed, but Patel isnāt an employee. The civil servants are entitled to protection, of course, but the Ministerial Code is a different beast.
As for whether bullying is a breach of the Ministerial Code then breaches are determined by the PM. Something that the Courts have said they cannot adjudicate on (itās not justiciable). But the relevant test is not whether a minister has broken the code but rather whether the minister continues to have the confidence of the PM.
Johnson considered that, looking at the circumstances in the round, that he still had confidence in Patel. Ergo the Ministerial Code had not been breached. Effectively itās a trust and confidence Code, that sets out behaviour that is expected and what may cause the PM to lose trust and confidence in a minister.
1 Like
Whilst the evil cow might not be classed as an employee, wouldnāt civil serants be employees?
Yes, but thatās a separate issue. Sir Philip Rutnam (?) brought an Employment Tribunal claim against Patel/the Home Office for similar issues that ended up being settled for a reported Ā£300k, I think?!
1 Like