The Covid-19 serious chat thread

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2020, 7:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

Self-isolating, social distancing, locked down thread split.

by Derbymanc Tue 27 Oct 2020, 2:32 pm

Burnham did turn round and tell the government to F off, he only caved when no one else backed him. The far reaching consequences seem to be that the South will be fine whlist the North will have massive unemployment and hardship, thereby building a bigger wedge between the North and South divide.

Also though what Burnham has really done is made it so the government are reaching agreements with other areas to go into tier 3 which ultimately means more money for them.

As for Sunak, I don't believe in anything the tories now say, if it helps themselves they're all for it, if it doesn't they'll put it off. how anyone can support the tories is beyond me, but then again we've got a bunch of Yanks thinking that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread so I shouldn't be too surprised

by Soul Requiem Tue 27 Oct 2020, 2:37 pm

Derbymanc wrote:Burnham did turn round and tell the government to F off, he only caved when no one else backed him. The far reaching consequences seem to be that the South will be fine whlist the North will have massive unemployment and hardship, thereby building a bigger wedge between the North and South divide.

Also though what Burnham has really done is made it so the government are reaching agreements with other areas to go into tier 3 which ultimately means more money for them.

As for Sunak, I don't believe in anything the tories now say, if it helps themselves they're all for it, if it doesn't they'll put it off. how anyone can support the tories is beyond me, but then again we've got a bunch of Yanks thinking that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread so I shouldn't be too surprised

He caved because he had no option to, there was no outcome whereby Manchester did not enter tier 3 restrictions, are you under the impression that isn't the case?

Some people believe in self determination hence my voting stance.

by Derbymanc Tue 27 Oct 2020, 2:43 pm

On no they were gonna enter no matter what, Andy Burnham was showing that he'd fight for them which is what he's there to do. I know there were talks with Liverpool as well but trying to get them 2 to get on the same page was never gonna happen :-).

I'm not sure what you mean by self determination?
do you mean like setting a printing company up a year ago and then getting a grant for PPE cause your mate is a tory?
Or being able to state that those losing their jobs due to things like tier 3 should find their own way to feed their kids cause you know, they just need to pull their bootstraps up?

I was happy when BoJo took over, thought he'd be a bit of a straight shooter and be strong for the country, alas he's a bigger buffoon than I thought and his party is wide open for corruption

by lostinwales Tue 27 Oct 2020, 3:37 pm

Derbymanc wrote:On no they were gonna enter no matter what, Andy Burnham was showing that he'd fight for them which is what he's there to do. I know there were talks with Liverpool as well but trying to get them 2 to get on the same page was never gonna happen :-).

I'm not sure what you mean by self determination?
do you mean like setting a printing company up a year ago and then getting a grant for PPE cause your mate is a tory?
Or being able to state that those losing their jobs due to things like tier 3 should find their own way to feed their kids cause you know, they just need to pull their bootstraps up?

I was happy when BoJo took over, thought he'd be a bit of a straight shooter and be strong for the country, alas he's a bigger buffoon than I thought and his party is wide open for corruption

That is what they said of Trump. You should have done more research. All his failings were clear to see well before he became PM. Well worth digging up well known leftie Max Hastings assessment of the man.

Boris is a gold medal egomaniac… His chaotic public persona is not an act – he is, indeed, manically disorganised about everything except his own image management. He is also a far more ruthless, and frankly nastier, figure than the public appreciates… I would not take Boris’s word about whether it is Monday or Tuesday… He is not a man to believe in, to trust or respect, save as a superlative exhibitionist. He is bereft of judgment, loyalty and discretion. Only in the star-crazed, friviolous Britain of the 21st century could such a man have risen so high, and he is utterly unfit to go higher still.

Also
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 27 Oct 2020, 3:59 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It now looks like their is no long term immunity to the bug, just because you have had it and recovered, you may still be susceptible. The antibodies seem to start dying off after a couple of months. This coming from researchers at Imperial College London.

Do the more knowledgeable on the subject think this will affect a vaccine?

Not really. This reported effect is normal for quite a few viruses etc. People who've had it should retain memory B-cells, so should respond to a new infection pretty fast. Depends on if a new infection is a new strain/lineage of the virus or not I would think, or simply re-infection w/ existing. If SARS-CoV-2 can undergo rapid antigenic variation (similar to flu), we might have some fun and games, but guess we'll just have to include it in a seasonal vaccine programme a la influenza.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 27 Oct 2020, 4:01 pm

Derbymanc wrote:It was all over Sky News last week Navy with one of the advisors confirming it due to the fact that sometimes it tells people to self isolate when they shouldn't

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-people-told-to-self-isolate-stopped-from-claiming-500-grant-by-flaw-in-contract-tracing-app-12111795

Cheers. Missed that. Sounds like a stupid issue - wouldn't blame those likely to be affected then. More idiocy.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 27 Oct 2020, 4:03 pm

Derbymanc wrote:Morning Navy, hope your well bud.

I don't know if it's just me, but this doesn't seem like the normal run of the mill backhanders politicians hand out. It seems like absolute blatant corruption to me so whilst the idea to vote them out is good I was more on about from a legal standpoint.

I have never felt more jaded about the whole thing in my life and i'm used to feeling this way half the time :-).

I think the problem they've got is Andy Burnham worked out exactly how much money they needed (again a drop in the ocean to whats been handed out in 'contracts') and had to fight his corner, it's a pity that the North didn't get together and tell BoJo to stick it as the area will be wrecked after christmas

No idea what can done w/ any corruption. If there's legal avenues I'd be all for those that have ****ed up getting canned for it. I've been jaded since Bliar and Iraq. Politicians have lost trust of the electorate - will take them decades to win it back and they aren't making a good job of even starting it just now.

by Derbymanc Tue 27 Oct 2020, 4:56 pm

I didn't see much choice as I really don't like Corbyn either but then i'm with Navy in that i'm so frickin jaded by it all i wouldn't trust a single one.

it's the simple things, the opportunity to have a track and trace system that works, why are you paying contractors 7K a day to work on it (I know contractors get more, i am 1 but that is ridiculous)

and all the rest, i can't even be bothered writing it out there's so much. Mental Health is at an all time low at the moment across the board and i just feel sorry and sad for the country as a whole

by **Pr4wn** Wed 28 Oct 2020, 12:26 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It now looks like their is no long term immunity to the bug, just because you have had it and recovered, you may still be susceptible. The antibodies seem to start dying off after a couple of months. This coming from researchers at Imperial College London.

Do the more knowledgeable on the subject think this will affect a vaccine?
Not really. This reported effect is normal for quite a few viruses etc. People who've had it should retain memory B-cells, so should respond to a new infection pretty fast. Depends on if a new infection is a new strain/lineage of the virus or not I would think, or simply re-infection w/ existing. If SARS-CoV-2 can undergo rapid antigenic variation (similar to flu), we might have some fun and games, but guess we'll just have to include it in a seasonal vaccine programme a la influenza.

Does the issue here therefore become that, while their body is responding to the reinfection, the person could potentially still be contagious to others?

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 28 Oct 2020, 10:25 am

Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It now looks like their is no long term immunity to the bug, just because you have had it and recovered, you may still be susceptible. The antibodies seem to start dying off after a couple of months. This coming from researchers at Imperial College London.

Do the more knowledgeable on the subject think this will affect a vaccine?
Not really. This reported effect is normal for quite a few viruses etc. People who've had it should retain memory B-cells, so should respond to a new infection pretty fast. Depends on if a new infection is a new strain/lineage of the virus or not I would think, or simply re-infection w/ existing. If SARS-CoV-2 can undergo rapid antigenic variation (similar to flu), we might have some fun and games, but guess we'll just have to include it in a seasonal vaccine programme a la influenza.

Does the issue here therefore become that, while their body is responding to the reinfection, the person could potentially still be contagious to others?

I would think so, yes. Maybe for a shorter period? Another thing we don't yet know I'm afraid.

by lostinwales Wed 28 Oct 2020, 1:03 pm

Derbymanc wrote:I didn't see much choice as I really don't like Corbyn either but then i'm with Navy in that i'm so frickin jaded by it all i wouldn't trust a single one.

it's the simple things, the opportunity to have a track and trace system that works, why are you paying contractors 7K a day to work on it (I know contractors get more, i am 1 but that is ridiculous)

and all the rest, i can't even be bothered writing it out there's so much. Mental Health is at an all time low at the moment across the board and i just feel sorry and sad for the country as a whole

That is probably for another thread but Corbyn was never viable beyond those that bought into his personality cult. The only way he would have made it into Downing street was as part of a coalition, and I'd rate his ability to hold a coalition together more than 5 minutes as negligable.

by Samo Sat 31 Oct 2020, 5:32 pm

Looking forward to people accusing local leaders of "playing games with peoples lives" when it inevitably goes tits up and they have the audacity to say something.

by BamBam Sat 31 Oct 2020, 5:48 pm

Hi SR

by GSC Sat 31 Oct 2020, 6:05 pm

Without wanting to make political points while could've been done earlier this was largely inevitable

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 31 Oct 2020, 7:23 pm

Samo wrote:Looking forward to people accusing local leaders of "playing games with peoples lives" when it inevitably goes tits up and they have the audacity to say something.

Depends entirely on the context of what's said and when. Unlike some, I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of one political stripe or another. Perhaps Burnham would object to the newly announced lockdown, even in the face of the data presented today? One would hope not.

by Samo Sat 31 Oct 2020, 7:26 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Samo wrote:Looking forward to people accusing local leaders of "playing games with peoples lives" when it inevitably goes tits up and they have the audacity to say something.
Depends entirely on the context of what's said and when. Unlike some, I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of one political stripe or another. Perhaps Burnham would object to the newly announced lockdown, even in the face of the data presented today? One would hope not.

Of course not mate

by lostinwales Sat 31 Oct 2020, 7:35 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Samo wrote:Looking forward to people accusing local leaders of "playing games with peoples lives" when it inevitably goes tits up and they have the audacity to say something.
Depends entirely on the context of what's said and when. Unlike some, I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of one political stripe or another. Perhaps Burnham would object to the newly announced lockdown, even in the face of the data presented today? One would hope not.

I believe he was calling for a national 'circuit break' (hateful term). The issue with the tier 3 regs is that they were open ended.

by BamBam Sun 01 Nov 2020, 11:18 am

Burnham was arguing the Tier 3 status warranted a higher level of support financially than the amount being offered. "Tier 4" (named so they can say they stuck to their word and didn't go back to another national lockdown) doesn't go a whole lot further than Tier 3, but suddenly the furlough scheme has been extended.

Which is good news for all those impacted, but surely those pointing to a north south divide will be slightly vindicated after seeing yet another U turn, but it took London and the south being affected for it to happen.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 02 Nov 2020, 12:28 pm

BamBam wrote:Burnham was arguing the Tier 3 status warranted a higher level of support financially than the amount being offered. "Tier 4" (named so they can say they stuck to their word and didn't go back to another national lockdown) doesn't go a whole lot further than Tier 3, but suddenly the furlough scheme has been extended.

Which is good news for all those impacted, but surely those pointing to a north south divide will be slightly vindicated after seeing yet another U turn, but it took London and the south being affected for it to happen.

Hard to disagree w/ how this appears, even if there were logical reasons for it. Ditto from a Scotland/Wales/N.I. perspective.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 06 Nov 2020, 7:24 pm

QEII Hospital, Birmingham postponing elective surgery due to ICU being "full".

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 09 Nov 2020, 12:28 pm

This would be such good news:

'The first coronavirus vaccine can prevent more than 90% of people from getting Covid-19, a preliminary analysis shows.

'The developers - Pfizer and BioNTech - described it as a "great day for science and humanity".

Their vaccine has been tested on 43,500 people in six countries and no safety concerns have been raised.

'The companies plan to apply for emergency approval to use the vaccine by the end of the month.

'A vaccine - alongside better treatments - is seen as the best way of getting out of the restrictions that have been imposed on all our lives.

'There are around a dozen in the final stages of testing - known as a phase 3 trial - but this is the first to show any results.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54873105

by **LondonTiger** Mon 09 Nov 2020, 2:22 pm

It would be good, though some of the additional info should perhaps temper expectations here.

Two doses are required, delivered 3 weeks apart, with protection being delivered a week after the second dose.

The vaccines need to be stored at -80C. Not sure how long it lasts when removed from ultra cold storage, but could certainly complicate matters.

But could to see that Pfizer can now both sve us from Covid and give us an erection.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 09 Nov 2020, 2:40 pm

LondonTiger wrote:It would be good, though some of the additional info should perhaps temper expectations here.

Two doses are required, delivered 3 weeks apart, with protection being delivered a week after the second dose.

The vaccines need to be stored at -80C. Not sure how long it lasts when removed from ultra cold storage, but could certainly complicate matters.

But could to see that Pfizer can now both sve us from Covid and give us an erection.

Not quite - it's sub -80°C, which basically means in liquid nitrogen. Some way to go, especially w/ the logistics, before this becomes widely available. Good news though - at least a vaccine looks like it's a possible approach, even if we don't yet know how long the induced immunity lasts for.

by king_carlos Mon 09 Nov 2020, 2:48 pm

LondonTiger wrote:But could to see that Pfizer can now both sve us from Covid and give us an erection.

Finally a BOGOF deal I can get behind.

by jimbopip Fri 13 Nov 2020, 12:02 pm

here's a (not) totally unexpected development...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54897737

I'm no legal expert but the whole procurement of PPE stinks of corruption.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 13 Nov 2020, 2:36 pm

jimbopip wrote:here's a (not) totally unexpected development...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54897737

I'm no legal expert but the whole procurement of PPE stinks of corruption.

Something clearly rotten here. Can imagine the panic to get PPE on stream back then, but no excuse for this sort of thing.

by Scottrf Fri 13 Nov 2020, 4:49 pm

Same as all the government contracts, companies owned by their friends. Half of them were dormant companies in a random industry. Same way we give a ferry contract to a company with no ships.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 17 Nov 2020, 1:21 pm

BBC News - Go-between paid £21m in taxpayer funds for NHS PPE
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373

by **LondonTiger** Tue 17 Nov 2020, 1:23 pm

It gets hard to see where incompetence ends and corruption begins.

by Scottrf Tue 17 Nov 2020, 5:05 pm

"So far the UK's Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has published contracts with Mr Saiger's company, Saiger LLC, totalling more than £200m. These were awarded without being opened to competition."

No company that operates like our public sector would survive. Bunch of crooks.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 18 Nov 2020, 9:05 am

Scottrf wrote:"So far the UK's Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has published contracts with Mr Saiger's company, Saiger LLC, totalling more than £200m. These were awarded without being opened to competition."

No company that operates like our public sector would survive. Bunch of crooks.

Of course. Public sector = bad, private sector = good. However, this is a private sector entity that's pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. Bunch of crooks.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 18 Nov 2020, 9:06 am

LondonTiger wrote:BBC News - Go-between paid £21m in taxpayer funds for NHS PPE
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373

Pretty impressive, don't you think? Took me some time to get my jaw off the floor when I read this.

by BamBam Wed 18 Nov 2020, 12:32 pm

You should ask the usual Government 606v2 spokesman for tips next time, he spends 90% of his time with his jaw firmly planted to the floor

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 19 Nov 2020, 1:21 pm

BamBam wrote:You should ask the usual Government 606v2 spokesman for tips next time, he spends 90% of his time with his jaw firmly planted to the floor

And that would be?

by BamBam Fri 20 Nov 2020, 11:46 am

I couldn't possibly point fingers

by **LondonTiger** Fri 20 Nov 2020, 12:00 pm

Not Covid, but symptomatic of the rotten core to this Govt:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

I love the (non) apology: sorry "that my behaviour in the past has upset people"

Which of course follows this previous (non) apology: ‘sorry if people feel there have been failings’ re PPE

by jimbopip Fri 20 Nov 2020, 12:20 pm

Spot on Tiger.
One wonders just what Ms Patel has to do before she becomes so toxic that her career is finished. Certainly the behaviour which led to the Maybot sacking her would in normal times have finished her off. In nthat instance her behaviour was part of Johnson's deliberate, orchestrated moves to make May's premiership untenable and she was rewarded with the office of Home Secretary, however i am amazed that Johnson believes he can brazen this one out.
Close ally of Johnson behaves unacceptably, PM states he has full confidence in his ally, refuses to sack said ally. Where have we heard this before? How did that play out?

by **LondonTiger** Fri 20 Nov 2020, 12:55 pm

May should have sacked her rather than "forcing her to resign". Her initial behaviour was bad enough, holiding "secret negotiations" with th eIstaeli's behind the abcks of teh Foreign Office while at the same time accepting luxury holidays from them was bad enough and should have led to a resignation. However she was seemingly going to brazen that one out until it was revealed she had lied to May about what she had done. For that she shoudl not have been given the courtesy of being allowed to resign.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 20 Nov 2020, 4:05 pm

BamBam wrote:I couldn't possibly point fingers

I'm sure. Some here would make great Jurors: "Guilty your Honour; he's a wrong 'un, I just know it. Just look at some of the other things he's done. Evidence? Why? I just know he did it.".

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 20 Nov 2020, 4:13 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Not Covid, but symptomatic of the rotten core to this Govt:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

I love the (non) apology: sorry "that my behaviour in the past has upset people"

Which of course follows this previous (non) apology: ‘sorry if people feel there have been failings’ re PPE

To be clear, this is no comment on her previous missteps.
I don't like Patel (at all), but there's nuance here that you're glossing over. She's blunt and shouts sometimes. No-one, apparently, told her to moderate her behaviour and point out it might be out of place and report states its improved once she was made aware. Also points out that behaviour of some in the department wasn't helpful to her role. I can see why Johnson hasn't sacked her based on this.
One might ask why some of the snowflakes (Philip Rutnam, for example - bless) that didn't like being shouted at by a short, woman of Asian ethnicity didn't, apparently, point out to her that her behaviour could be more constructive, rather than making a formal complaint. Why were they shouted at? Were they actually scheisse? Could be.

by jimbopip Fri 20 Nov 2020, 7:08 pm

Mr Shorts , I can see what you're trying to say here but......
Members of the legal profession commenting that the government's use of pejorative language towards them has led to an increase in physical assault by members of the public.
Conservative MP's celebrating Dominic Cummings departure and (finally) making public the outrageous levels of vitriolic personal abuse that seemed to be accepted by the PM in Downing Street.
A Secretary Of State who has been complained about by civil servants at THREE different departments.
Is there a pattern here?
Certainly people are commenting on the similarities between The Adulterer In Chief's response (or inaction) to the Castle Barnard saga and this episode; " One rule for them and another for us."
It does seem to me that Johnson and his inner circle seem to have a fairly arrogant opinion of their own worth and this is manifesting itself in the way they treat others deemed "lower" than them.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 20 Nov 2020, 9:31 pm

She was investigated across 3 departments, in one of which two women had already received payouts due to her behaviour. As the father of two short, Asian ethnicity daughters I hope they would resort to logic and persuasion rather than shouting and pouting.

by lostinwales Sat 21 Nov 2020, 1:03 am

Prittstick. Either she's lying about the bullying or she managed to spend who knows how many years working up to the level of HS without noticing that people don't like being shouted at.

Either way it's not a good look. The fact that the guy who carried out the investigation has now resigned doesn't make that look any better.

by BamBam Sat 21 Nov 2020, 9:46 am

Being of Asian ethnicity myself, the way the Tories are trying to use her background as a shield to deflect any criticism disgusts me. She's just the token to allow them to say that they aren't racist and the mouth breathers think the sun shines out of her ass because she's anti immigration

Helpfully she's thick and cruel enough to enjoy pulling up the drawbridge now that her family and community have been able to set roots here, but she doesn't want anyone else to be able to have the same opportunity

by Scottrf Sat 21 Nov 2020, 6:06 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Not Covid, but symptomatic of the rotten core to this Govt:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

I love the (non) apology: sorry "that my behaviour in the past has upset people"

Which of course follows this previous (non) apology: ‘sorry if people feel there have been failings’ re PPE

To be clear, this is no comment on her previous missteps.
I don't like Patel (at all), but there's nuance here that you're glossing over. She's blunt and shouts sometimes. No-one, apparently, told her to moderate her behaviour and point out it might be out of place and report states its improved once she was made aware. Also points out that behaviour of some in the department wasn't helpful to her role. I can see why Johnson hasn't sacked her based on this.
One might ask why some of the snowflakes (Philip Rutnam, for example - bless) that didn't like being shouted at by a short, woman of Asian ethnicity didn't, apparently, point out to her that her behaviour could be more constructive, rather than making a formal complaint. Why were they shouted at? Were they actually scheisse? Could be.

Do you get a salary for this or is it a voluntary role?

by jimbopip Sat 21 Nov 2020, 7:53 pm

Actually Mr Shorts... if you check the BBC website it seems that in August 2019 Phillip Rutman submitted a written report to Ms Patel outlining the ways in which her behaviour was falling below standards expected by the ministerial code of conduct. Viewers of HIGNFY will have spotted the reference to a female civil servant being awarded £35 K after complaints about Patel's behaviour. These two alone would refute your argument that no one told her she was a bully.
Also, we're not talking about a 16 year old on work experience... this is an experienced politician who has led three ministries. She should be setting the standards not complaining that no one told her that shouting and swearing at employees is an abuse of power.
As I alluded to earlier in this thread, her treatment of people who couldn't stand up to her seems to be a perfect reflection of Dominic Cummings behaviour in Downing Street meetings. People usually only behave like this on a regular basis if they feel confident that their boss is tacitly condoning it.

Boris is refusing to sack her because, at some level, he is responsible for the bullying unpleasant culture that is part of this government's DNA.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 23 Nov 2020, 9:50 am

Apologies, but thought I'd reply to as many as possible in one go.

jimbopip wrote:Mr Shorts , I can see what you're trying to say here but......
Members of the legal profession commenting that the government's use of pejorative language towards them has led to an increase in physical assault by members of the public.
Conservative MP's celebrating Dominic Cummings departure and (finally) making public the outrageous levels of vitriolic personal abuse that seemed to be accepted by the PM in Downing Street.
A Secretary Of State who has been complained about by civil servants at THREE different departments.
Is there a pattern here?
Certainly people are commenting on the similarities between The Adulterer In Chief's response (or inaction) to the Castle Barnard saga and this episode; " One rule for them and another for us."
It does seem to me that Johnson and his inner circle seem to have a fairly arrogant opinion of their own worth and this is manifesting itself in the way they treat others deemed "lower" than them.

jimbopip wrote:Actually Mr Shorts... if you check the BBC website it seems that in August 2019 Phillip Rutman submitted a written report to Ms Patel outlining the ways in which her behaviour was falling below standards expected by the ministerial code of conduct. Viewers of HIGNFY will have spotted the reference to a female civil servant being awarded £35 K after complaints about Patel's behaviour. These two alone would refute your argument that no one told her she was a bully.
Also, we're not talking about a 16 year old on work experience... this is an experienced politician who has led three ministries. She should be setting the standards not complaining that no one told her that shouting and swearing at employees is an abuse of power.
As I alluded to earlier in this thread, her treatment of people who couldn't stand up to her seems to be a perfect reflection of Dominic Cummings behaviour in Downing Street meetings. People usually only behave like this on a regular basis if they feel confident that their boss is tacitly condoning it.

Boris is refusing to sack her because, at some level, he is responsible for the bullying unpleasant culture that is part of this government's DNA.

Hi Mr. Jimbo. Good posts and I agree that there may be an issue here more widely w/ her behaviour. However, and I think I was clear on this before, I was commenting on the outcome relating to this one incident and the report that was released in response to the issues raised. I was clear that this was no comment on her previous. Do I like her? No, not really on what evidence I see.
Everyone here seems to simply accept the accusations levelled at Patel, but see no issue in their credulous acceptance of comments from Phillip Rutnam, one of the complainants. He clearly has no bias has he? In addition, and more widely here, I don't see why it's an issue to imagine that there is politics being played by members of the civil service.
I agree that her behaviour appears to be something that shouldn't be tolerated (I wouldn't) but I confess to being utterly fed up w/ the snowflake reactions of people these days. If someone doesn't like her shouting at them, then FFS call her out and tell her that she should stop it. Grow a pair. If she's using her position as HS to threaten her minions' job security, that's a different kettle of fish, but if it's simply shouting etc when, in her view, she's being baulked and or someone is basically rubbish, then I think people need to grow a bigger spine.
Frankly, there's too much no-one knows enough detail of. As usual.

LondonTiger wrote:She was investigated across 3 departments, in one of which two women had already received payouts due to her behaviour. As the father of two short, Asian ethnicity daughters I hope they would resort to logic and persuasion rather than shouting and pouting.

Payouts may mean very little. If a complaint is made, it may simply be easier to pay someone off w/o any admission of guilt. Happens all the time although I do concede that a £35k payout (if correct) is quite a lot.

lostinwales wrote:Prittstick. Either she's lying about the bullying or she managed to spend who knows how many years working up to the level of HS without noticing that people don't like being shouted at.

Either way it's not a good look. The fact that the guy who carried out the investigation has now resigned doesn't make that look any better.

Or, maybe, she got to where she has w/o much, you know, actual bullying. Agree it's not a good look, but neither is complaining, outside of normal channels, about an Asian female politician if you're a white, male, Knight (an honorific you got for simply doing your job) in the civil service.

BamBam wrote:Being of Asian ethnicity myself, the way the Tories are trying to use her background as a shield to deflect any criticism disgusts me. She's just the token to allow them to say that they aren't racist and the mouth breathers think the sun shines out of her ass because she's anti immigration

Helpfully she's thick and cruel enough to enjoy pulling up the drawbridge now that her family and community have been able to set roots here, but she doesn't want anyone else to be able to have the same opportunity

Passionate, as usual. However, I'll take issue w/ your central point. I was waiting for someone else to call it, but no surprises that the frequent posters here haven't, as it doesn't support their default position.
Your assertion that Patel is a 'token' is demonstrably not true, unless you're referring to her gender (and even that's then incorrect). You're not though, are you? If you were, you wouldn't have prefaced your post by mentioning your own ethnicity.
If she's a 'token' Asian, what does that make Sharma & Sunak within just the Cabinet, or Braverman as AG, to say nothing of the wider party?
Your insulting of anyone who might support her views and/or those of the Tory party is further confirmation, again, of why Brexit occurred and why UK politics has an issue for the foreseeable future.

Scottrf wrote:Do you get a salary for this or is it a voluntary role?

Perhaps it's better if you sit this one out?

by jimbopip Mon 23 Nov 2020, 10:33 am

Morning Mr Shorts, I genuinely hope you don't feel hat you're being ganged up on! You seem to be the one who stands up for the government and then catches flak for it. That could easily stray into bullying. Oh the irony! I think most of us on here want a plurality of opinions rather than an echo chamber so don't take it personally.

Everyone here seems to simply accept the accusations levelled at Patel, but see no issue in their credulous acceptance of comments from Phillip Rutnam, one of the complainants.
There is no evidence from Rutnam in Sir Alex Allen's report: the government wouldn't allow Allen to talk to him, which I find rather "Unfair".
He clearly has no bias has he? In addition, and more widely here, I don't see why it's an issue to imagine that there is politics being played by members of the civil service.
I agree that her behaviour appears to be something that shouldn't be tolerated (I wouldn't) but I confess to being utterly fed up w/ the snowflake reactions of people these days. If someone doesn't like her shouting at them, then FFS call her out and tell her that she should stop it. Grow a pair.
Apparently Rutnam did send her a memo/official document detailing the ways in which her behaviour towards those she managed fell below expected standards. If two previous employees were paid off then they must also have made official complaints. So it would appear that she had been made aware that her behaviour was not acceptable nor in keeping with the ministerial code of conduct.

Speaking of bullying...did you see Matt Hancock being interviewed by Kay Burley on Sky this morning? She began asking him questions about bullying in a very generalised sort of way and he was relaxed and gave anodyne answers. Then she began to put in specific details about Ms Patel's behaviour. He blanched, froze for a second then and then refused to say anything because, "the Prime Minister has given his judgement on this and I can't say anything." I'm quoting from memory but it was pathetic just how scared he is of his boss.

p.s. I notice that when attempting to use the quote function to quote from your answer I fecced it up; on the Scottish rugby threads that is known as "Doing a Jimbo" picard

by lostinwales Mon 23 Nov 2020, 1:23 pm

It would be a boring place if we all agreed all the time. We can hope to keep conversations civilised.

patel - her sex and racial background (and height!) should not be an issue either way. It does make me angry when some Tory supporters use these things as a source of complaint about the 'complainers'. But it does mean that we should be careful about the language used about her. The smirk can be very irritating again but it should not be tied into this discussion.

There is a pattern of behaviour, at least how it is reported. There are related issues, in that, if you take their word for it, her behaviour has been raised with her in the past. People 'have shown the balls' to raise the issues.

There are also serious questions about the report itself. The author (who has resigned over the way in which the government has managed it) is on record in saying that the government prevented him from talking to Rutnam 'because of the upcoming tribunal'. It does seem a little bizarre that one of the primary complainants were excluded from such a work. The other questions are over the apparent pressure to soften the conclusions and of course the fact that it has been sitting on Johnson's desk since April.

In a sense this should be irrelevant. In the past she was asked to resign based on her unofficial meetings with the Israelli government. That should have barred her from any public office in the future.

It is all too easy to let general perceptions of government performance and perception of individual lack of performance to drive opinion, but I think there is enough actual evidence in this case to say she's a wrong'un.

by BamBam Mon 23 Nov 2020, 2:23 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
BamBam wrote:Being of Asian ethnicity myself, the way the Tories are trying to use her background as a shield to deflect any criticism disgusts me. She's just the token to allow them to say that they aren't racist and the mouth breathers think the sun shines out of her ass because she's anti immigration

Helpfully she's thick and cruel enough to enjoy pulling up the drawbridge now that her family and community have been able to set roots here, but she doesn't want anyone else to be able to have the same opportunity
Passionate, as usual. However, I'll take issue w/ your central point. I was waiting for someone else to call it, but no surprises that the frequent posters here haven't, as it doesn't support their default position.
Your assertion that Patel is a 'token' is demonstrably not true, unless you're referring to her gender (and even that's then incorrect). You're not though, are you? If you were, you wouldn't have prefaced your post by mentioning your own ethnicity.
If she's a 'token' Asian, what does that make Sharma & Sunak within just the Cabinet, or Braverman as AG, to say nothing of the wider party?
Your insulting of anyone who might support her views and/or those of the Tory party is further confirmation, again, of why Brexit occurred and why UK politics has an issue for the foreseeable future.

I'm going to try and respond to this without letting passion / emotion cloud my words, but apologies in advance if I don't quite manage it.

Perhaps token was the wrong word, but let me explain my view. In my view, she is a "token" in a way that Sunak and Sharma aren't for a number of reasons. I see "token" in this case as someone who is in a role for the sake of appearing to be inclusive, and as a very visible representation of what the Tories want to represent themselves as, despite her shortcomings.

Sunak has shown a level of competence beyond any that of his senior cabinet colleagues over the last 9 months, and has attracted praise from across the political spectrum. I've not seen enough of Sharma, but he appears not to have made any disastrous comments or done anything that makes him seem corrupt, so in this talentless cabinet that means he's by far not the worst. This brings me on to Patel - she has been promoted to one of the great offices of state, an office she is unbelievably unqualified for.

She worked as a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, appeared to have some success then failed in her first attempt to become an MP. Cameron then parachuted her into a safe seat, and throughout a fairly unremarkable stint in Parliament, has managed to do the following:

- Co authored a book calling British workers the worst idlers in the world
- Suggested threatening Ireland with food blockades is the way to get them on side re Brexit
- Supported the death penalty returning, and voted against single sex marriage
- Had unapproved, unofficial meetings with a foreign government, lied to the PM about it and was promptly sacked
- Previously had settlements paid out because of her behaviour towards civil service staff
- Vociferously targeted the legal profession with threats and aggressive language

She's then been rewarded for all of this with being made Home Secretary! Every time she appears on television and needs to think on her feet, she makes an utter fool of herself (see her reading out a number a few months ago), and she just repeats soundbites whenever asked to add substance to her stock responses.

Coming back to the idea of her being a token, I think she is in the role of Home Secretary primarily due to her loyalty to Johnson, but also because having brown skin meant that she offers an additional shield to any criticism of Tory immigration policies. She seems to take great glee in "ending freedom of movement", and "cracking down on refugees", and whenever she is personally criticised the responses seem to be that people are targeting her because she is Asian, and "the left hate to see people from a BAME community on the right". This to me, is the reason that she is a token - anyone (literally anyone) more competent could have been given the Home Secretary role but they wouldn't offer the same shield.

A woman whose own parents and other members of the Gujurati community survived persecution from Idi Amin and took refuge in the UK is now denying others the same opportunity with a smile on her face, and I find that abhorrent.

As for your comments about Brexit, well the "success" of the negotiations just demonstrate what a great idea its been, and I hope it was worth it for voters to see a few less "foreign" faces

by Sponsored content