By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
She has clearly taken away his power base and he does not like it one bit.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
Not sure it's 'mindless'...it is normal for one to wonder what happens in such scenarios.
At the gym today I was handed the Sunday Mail....I know, I had asked for the other paper they had.... Anyhow, why not I thought, let's see who's coming over the hills to attack us..
There was a double page spread on this. Apparently this chap has form. His track record, according to the Daily Mail, is one of much failure swept away by his effortless skill to throw juniors under whatever bus was required.
He was at the HO when Windrush happened, Amber Rudd asked for data, over and over again....He ignored.......two weeks after she was fired he then released it!
Now don't all shoot.....I'm telling you what the Daily Mail had to say.
If you take a pinch of salt, and try and objective, this chap is a highly paid, £170k I think I read, career civil servant who is used to getting his own way.
I'm more leaning toward the likelihood that he went toe to toe with Ms P and lost. Not used to losing he simply didn't know what to do....credibility lost...Weakened position. 33 years final salary pension.....why not leave and slam the door by going to a tribunal....
Ok, you can all fire away now. But don't forget if it had been your darling Dianne you'd melt the board...
" Career Civil Servant who is used to getting his own way"
I saw this argument used by Richard Tice on Twitter. The same Richard Tice that wants to walk out of Brexit negotiations in a huff if he doesn't get his own way.
Is this because.... on 18:43 - Mar 1 by GaryCooper
The home office that continually fails, perhaps he was part of that failure?
If there is any failing then the responsibility lies solely with the person in charge - the Home Secretary. If not, then why have that post ?
As to what the 'righties' are regurgitating I would add
So why did Rudd resign ?
Rudd had told the Home Affairs Committee that the Home Office did not have targets for removal of illegal immigrants, contradicting testimony from Lucy Moreton, the general secretary of the ISU, a trade union for borders and immigration staff. Rudd resigned on Sunday, stating that she should have been aware of the targets and had “inadvertently misled” the committee"
as confirmed by
'Bernard Jenkin, PACAC chair and Conservative MP, said the Home Office “seems to have been a bit of a punchbag for successive secretaries of state, not least the most recently departed seemed to be criticising her officials for her predicament rather than taking responsibility for herself”.
The thought there being, that there were targets to remove those of the Windrush generation, something Rudd lied about, and when caught out tried to lay the blame on civil servants. Then having to resign when that was exposed as a lie.
Her actions follow the belief that the executive should not bee accountable and so will attempt to over rule and bypass both the legislative and the judiciary. Even to the point of stifling that debate and questioning by closing Parliament. Something seen with the resignation of Javid.
So why do fools like HB spew out what they are told ? Well, this should point you in the right direction
"...if it had been your darling Dianne you'd melt the board "
a belief that that others approach matters like this with the same blinkered partisan view - whereby lies and misinformation are ok as they are defending your side.
For my view Abbott receives an awful lot of abuse that is racist in motivation. Pointing that out neither makes her my darling not is any reflection of my judgementn on her as a politician. Something HB fails to grasp, even though it is likely to be the thought of many.
[Post edited 2 Mar 2020 9:20]
1
Is this because.... on 09:12 - Mar 2 with 5710 views
Is this because.... on 14:49 - Feb 29 by Swansea_Blue
There’s a dossier thicker than some of the arguments on this thread of the racist abuse Abbott has received (however inept she is or isn’t). Not that that’s got anything to do with bullying accusations against the current hapless home sec.
I think the poster has half a point here albeit inadvertently. Obviously there is an element that attack Abbott because she is a black woman, however that is ultimately a minority - the majority of criticism is as a result of very high profile gaffes. Probably unfairly in some cases as she is clearly a very good local MP, but unfortunately one that isn’t really fit for a cabinet/shadow cabinet position IMO
That said I can’t see any issue with calling Patel a hateful c*nt, that seems pretty fair based on her actions in government. Although calling her fat as 2 posters have done in this thread is rather out of order
Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
You don't get to the top of the political tree without being tough and determined, not to say ruthless.
Plus determination has to have direction. If you're determined to do something bad or damaging, then that is a negative.
IMO smashing the Civil Service to make them more politically pliable to the government in power is a negative. As is removing checks and balances on the practicality of policy decisions.
You may not be old enough to remember Richard Crossman, who was a Labour Cabinet minister from 1964-70 and to the left of the party. In his diaries, he confirmed that he saw the Civil Service as the effective opposition to a radical government. I would imagine that the same conservatism (with a small "c") applies now.
Is this because.... on 09:52 - Mar 2 by BrixtonBlue
"Of course we don't have Def info. We think about the reasons based on our own knowledge and reasoning."
In other words, you want to just make stuff up that suits your agenda (backing the Tories).
In that case then nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof....
Some like yourself just don't like honest debate and a questioning of a situation against their views.
The OP poses a reasonable question. Asking for total proof is puerile I'm afraid. It shows that you can't engage in a debate to when you disagree with the premise.
You and your kin simply throw rocks at anyone with whom you disagree. Have you never asked a question and answered it with an answer based on judgement and thought?
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
In that case then nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof....
Some like yourself just don't like honest debate and a questioning of a situation against their views.
The OP poses a reasonable question. Asking for total proof is puerile I'm afraid. It shows that you can't engage in a debate to when you disagree with the premise.
You and your kin simply throw rocks at anyone with whom you disagree. Have you never asked a question and answered it with an answer based on judgement and thought?
The most obvious reason Rutnam has done this is because Dominic Cummings plans to oust senior members of the Civil Service who aren't fully on board with his plans. Ministers need to rely on the information supplied by senior civil servants who've often spent decades in post. The most important thing is for these people to provide checks and balances, and obviously Dom isn't happy with that.
Politicians come and go so frequently that they rarely have control over their department. Rutnam was responsible for 150,000 civil servants over many, many years. As someone who's sung the high praises of CEOs before, you think you'd give more respect to what is essentially the CEO of the Home Office.
It has nothing to do with Patel being a woman or Asian either, as you originally stated.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Is this because.... on 10:00 - Mar 2 by Radlett_blue
You may not be old enough to remember Richard Crossman, who was a Labour Cabinet minister from 1964-70 and to the left of the party. In his diaries, he confirmed that he saw the Civil Service as the effective opposition to a radical government. I would imagine that the same conservatism (with a small "c") applies now.
No, I don't think that applies here
What Crossman was stating was that the then civil service was opposing radical policies. That is not the situation here.
It is one of the civil service highlighting and opposing attempts to work against the civil service. Rudd resigned when caught out lying about the Home office. Patel has a history of being unable to work with the civil service.* Javid resigned because his working with his civil servants was undermined.
The dismissal of NI secretary Julian Smith a month back suggests the problem rests with Number 10. Having a 'bunker' mentality this early into a government, whereby all differing views are removed, points to both a failing and incompetent government.
Appointing someone (Patel) to a job she is clearly not up to points to a wish to have control over ministers. Neither a good strategy, or any confidence that your policies and direction will inspire others to back you.
And as stated, having a large majority affords opposing views plenty of scope to rebel without any fear of losing power. Much more of this to come I am certain.
* 'a formal complaint was allegedly made about her conduct at least three years before she became Home Secretary. A Whitehall source alleges Ms Patel’s conduct was criticised while an employment minister at the Department for Work and Pensions between 2015 and 2016.'
0
Is this because.... on 10:31 - Mar 2 with 5607 views
In that case then nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof....
Some like yourself just don't like honest debate and a questioning of a situation against their views.
The OP poses a reasonable question. Asking for total proof is puerile I'm afraid. It shows that you can't engage in a debate to when you disagree with the premise.
You and your kin simply throw rocks at anyone with whom you disagree. Have you never asked a question and answered it with an answer based on judgement and thought?
No. The OP makes an assertion and appears to state a belief. It is based on nothing. Pure speculation.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
The most obvious reason Rutnam has done this is because Dominic Cummings plans to oust senior members of the Civil Service who aren't fully on board with his plans. Ministers need to rely on the information supplied by senior civil servants who've often spent decades in post. The most important thing is for these people to provide checks and balances, and obviously Dom isn't happy with that.
Politicians come and go so frequently that they rarely have control over their department. Rutnam was responsible for 150,000 civil servants over many, many years. As someone who's sung the high praises of CEOs before, you think you'd give more respect to what is essentially the CEO of the Home Office.
It has nothing to do with Patel being a woman or Asian either, as you originally stated.
I take your point and won't unlike many ask for proof.
I do however hear that Rutnam haa a track record of one who rises, and that's being able to throw others in the firing line to take the fall for (maybe) his mistakes.
Rudd was one who, allegedly, asked for data regarding Windrush. Rutnam held it back, she got fired, and then it appeared. Maybe she could have used that data to learn and change policy. Who knows.
I don't think this is a racial issue which is why I precluded it from the OP. I do think it may, may be misogynistic. The OP leans to that.
Cummings is changing things. Quickly from what I gather, and that will offend and upset many. If it's too quick we shall have to wait and see (see Hurst).
We don't know, but it's going to be an uncomfortable ride for many in unsackable jobs. A little bit of uncertainty can bring out the best in people.
Let's see how it plays out.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
In that case then nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof....
Some like yourself just don't like honest debate and a questioning of a situation against their views.
The OP poses a reasonable question. Asking for total proof is puerile I'm afraid. It shows that you can't engage in a debate to when you disagree with the premise.
You and your kin simply throw rocks at anyone with whom you disagree. Have you never asked a question and answered it with an answer based on judgement and thought?
It doesn't need 100% proof, and I haven't asked for such. But it needs to be based on SOME facts. And posting your opinion is fine if it wasn't so obviously skewed in one direction.
I disagree with people but respect their opinion if it's at least based on SOME evidence - and isn't always to back up some particular agenda.
You've taken the extreme to win your point (saying nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof, which is not what I'm saying) so I'll turn it around - are you saying it's ok for people to make up whatever lies they want and post those (because it coincidentally happens to suit their agenda)?
Read the responses to your constant stream of Tory-backing nonsense. Either you're stupid or you think we're all stupid.
I take your point and won't unlike many ask for proof.
I do however hear that Rutnam haa a track record of one who rises, and that's being able to throw others in the firing line to take the fall for (maybe) his mistakes.
Rudd was one who, allegedly, asked for data regarding Windrush. Rutnam held it back, she got fired, and then it appeared. Maybe she could have used that data to learn and change policy. Who knows.
I don't think this is a racial issue which is why I precluded it from the OP. I do think it may, may be misogynistic. The OP leans to that.
Cummings is changing things. Quickly from what I gather, and that will offend and upset many. If it's too quick we shall have to wait and see (see Hurst).
We don't know, but it's going to be an uncomfortable ride for many in unsackable jobs. A little bit of uncertainty can bring out the best in people.
Let's see how it plays out.
I'm happy to provide proof. What would you like proof of? If it's about Cummings, then you already believe/know that he's changing things quickly which will be uncomfortable.
Like I said, Rutnam is in charge of the largest, most complex department, with over 150,000 staff. If something goes wrong, why should he be the one who's always to blame for that when it's likely not his fault?
It's clearly not a misogynistic stance either given, as has already been pointed out to you, that he's worked very well under a number of female ministers in the past. For him to find Patel disagreeable is more likely evidence of her attitude towards the Civil Service than it is of his misogyny, for which there seems little to no evidence.
For him to be sacked you'd need to provide evidence of wrongdoing, which is why he's taking the govt. to an employment tribunal. It's a sacking because he's not aligned politically with Cummings. When the Govt starts politicising the Civil Service then we're on a slippery slope.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Is this because.... on 10:33 - Mar 2 by BrixtonBlue
It doesn't need 100% proof, and I haven't asked for such. But it needs to be based on SOME facts. And posting your opinion is fine if it wasn't so obviously skewed in one direction.
I disagree with people but respect their opinion if it's at least based on SOME evidence - and isn't always to back up some particular agenda.
You've taken the extreme to win your point (saying nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof, which is not what I'm saying) so I'll turn it around - are you saying it's ok for people to make up whatever lies they want and post those (because it coincidentally happens to suit their agenda)?
Read the responses to your constant stream of Tory-backing nonsense. Either you're stupid or you think we're all stupid.
Hampstead Blue working in a pet shop
0
Is this because.... on 11:26 - Mar 2 with 5532 views
I'm happy to provide proof. What would you like proof of? If it's about Cummings, then you already believe/know that he's changing things quickly which will be uncomfortable.
Like I said, Rutnam is in charge of the largest, most complex department, with over 150,000 staff. If something goes wrong, why should he be the one who's always to blame for that when it's likely not his fault?
It's clearly not a misogynistic stance either given, as has already been pointed out to you, that he's worked very well under a number of female ministers in the past. For him to find Patel disagreeable is more likely evidence of her attitude towards the Civil Service than it is of his misogyny, for which there seems little to no evidence.
For him to be sacked you'd need to provide evidence of wrongdoing, which is why he's taking the govt. to an employment tribunal. It's a sacking because he's not aligned politically with Cummings. When the Govt starts politicising the Civil Service then we're on a slippery slope.
I wasn't asking for proof at all as I agree Cummings is as you state and your last sentence rings with me as well.
I'm not totally in agreement over Rutland but that's OK. I am quietly suspicious of his motives. Maybe he saw an early exit, who knows. I may be being unfair to him, maybe not.
It is certainly not malicious.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
Is this because.... on 10:33 - Mar 2 by BrixtonBlue
It doesn't need 100% proof, and I haven't asked for such. But it needs to be based on SOME facts. And posting your opinion is fine if it wasn't so obviously skewed in one direction.
I disagree with people but respect their opinion if it's at least based on SOME evidence - and isn't always to back up some particular agenda.
You've taken the extreme to win your point (saying nobody can post anything on the board without 100% proof, which is not what I'm saying) so I'll turn it around - are you saying it's ok for people to make up whatever lies they want and post those (because it coincidentally happens to suit their agenda)?
Read the responses to your constant stream of Tory-backing nonsense. Either you're stupid or you think we're all stupid.
You've slightly missed my point.
There are some who, regardless, always come back with the 'I want total proof' argument.
I've mentioned earlier that the OP is as politically agnostic as I can make it, as hard as that is to agree with.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
He resigns claiming constructive dismissal because a very strong woman comes in and has taken away his power base.
I think there could be a bit of 'do you know who I am?' in this. Don't forget he's a man used to sitting at the top. I think PP has simply knocked him and he's toppled.
It's nothing to do the BJ or anything like that Harry. I'm looking at this one thing. It is provocative I know, the situation, not the post, but I quite like to see the old guard shaken a bit.
I think there could be a serious amount of complacency at his level. That's all.
All supposition to fit with your particular view of the world
2
Is this because.... on 11:36 - Mar 2 with 5505 views
I'm happy to provide proof. What would you like proof of? If it's about Cummings, then you already believe/know that he's changing things quickly which will be uncomfortable.
Like I said, Rutnam is in charge of the largest, most complex department, with over 150,000 staff. If something goes wrong, why should he be the one who's always to blame for that when it's likely not his fault?
It's clearly not a misogynistic stance either given, as has already been pointed out to you, that he's worked very well under a number of female ministers in the past. For him to find Patel disagreeable is more likely evidence of her attitude towards the Civil Service than it is of his misogyny, for which there seems little to no evidence.
For him to be sacked you'd need to provide evidence of wrongdoing, which is why he's taking the govt. to an employment tribunal. It's a sacking because he's not aligned politically with Cummings. When the Govt starts politicising the Civil Service then we're on a slippery slope.
The old adage, “good, quick, cheap, pick 2”, is not resolved by shouting at people.
Apparently, Tory governments, prefer small state and reduced tax intake. This Tory government seems to be in a bit of a hurry.
I wonder who will be blamed when it is apparent that the not-good solution isn’t really working to make life better for real people.
I am sure that enough people will believe what Johnson points at, and will probably even come up with their own defence for his sound bites.
2
Is this because.... on 11:43 - Mar 2 with 5493 views
All supposition to fit with your particular view of the world
Indeed. It's a bare assertion with no obvious basis other than a desire to believe it on party loyalty. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
There are some who, regardless, always come back with the 'I want total proof' argument.
I've mentioned earlier that the OP is as politically agnostic as I can make it, as hard as that is to agree with.
No, that is not correct. You are simply twisting the argument to try to deny what is being said
Where evidence is required it is for claims that previously have not been aired before.Something you HB are prone to do quite regularly. In fact it is one of the noticable facets of rightwing claims. So it is not '100% proof' being asked for but a link to your source so it can be checked/verified.
You don't seem to be so much concerned with refuting someone's point as much as winning the argument - meaning you ignore the requirement of tested evidence for the former for ill informed guff to back the latter.
Meaning that on almost every occasion your nosense gets blown out of the sky like a clay pigeon. Though oddly it does not seem to faze you, or other righties.
For my part I would make sure I checked what I was posting first. Maybe you should.
0
Is this because.... on 11:54 - Mar 2 with 5466 views
There are some who, regardless, always come back with the 'I want total proof' argument.
I've mentioned earlier that the OP is as politically agnostic as I can make it, as hard as that is to agree with.
I haven't missed your point, I've seen through it. You simply want to say whatever you like that backs the Tories without any refutation based on facts or evidence.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
