[Politics] Home Office Pay Off Claimant In Bullying Case With Taxpayers Money

[Eeyore]

In no way do I wish to defend Ms Patel, but the agreement would most likely have been cheaper for the tax payer. If the matter had proceeded then there would have been additional costs for all parties on top of what was awarded.
Would have been nice to see her forced to explain her actions though.

Not if she won at the tribunal I wouldn't have thought.

The point here is that it has avoided a tribunal that would have opened the whole affair up.

I didn't realise that this was trending from March, however it is still a relevant discussion given how this government behaves with with regard to the conduct of its leadership.

 

[BBassic]

WTF is happening here? A time jump thread on a story of payoffs for wrongful dismissal from 18 weeks ago being whatabouted with a decision to go to war, from 18 years ago.

It is doing my head in that any criticisms of the current Government, get defended with, Corbyn would have been worse, Blair was worse, etc. Well, they might have been, but they are not in the job now, they are not the ones currently ****ing us over.

One wonders exactly how many years the Tories will need to be in power before the standard "cleaning up after the last Labour government" becomes ever so slightly ridiculous.

 

[Beach Hut]

WTF is happening here? A time jump thread on a story of payoffs for wrongful dismissal from 18 weeks ago being whatabouted with a decision to go to war, from 18 years ago.

It is doing my head in that any criticisms of the current Government, get defended with, Corbyn would have been worse, Blair was worse, etc. Well, they might have been, but they are not in the job now, they are not the ones currently ****ing us over.

Simply read, all power corrupts whatever the political party

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

WTF is happening here? A time jump thread on a story of payoffs for wrongful dismissal from 18 weeks ago being whatabouted with a decision to go to war, from 18 years ago.

It is doing my head in that any criticisms of the current Government, get defended with, Corbyn would have been worse, Blair was worse, etc. Well, they might have been, but they are not in the job now, they are not the ones currently ****ing us over.

Indeed.

And I wouldn't ordinarily describe [MENTION=38]Beach Hut[/MENTION] as an anti-war hippy, aligned with the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, either. I suspect he's trying to have his cake and eat it

 

[Eric Potts]

Simply read, all power corrupts whatever the political party

That's a quote from Mick Hucknall is it ?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Simply read, all power corrupts whatever the political party

All power at all times? I didn't have you down as an anarchist

 

[Bodian]

One wonders exactly how many years the Tories will need to be in power before the standard "cleaning up after the last Labour government" becomes ever so slightly ridiculous.

We haven't yet fully recovered from the global financial crisis caused by Gordon Brown.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

One wonders exactly how many years the Tories will need to be in power before the standard "cleaning up after the last Labour government" becomes ever so slightly ridiculous.

Hell, they managed to get in power and stay in power by blaming a global recession caused by sub prime lending in America on Labour, and the electorate went 'yeah, I'll buy that'. Three successive successful labour governments, exercising 'prudence' all forgotten in a second.

I will concede that Brown was a useless prime minister though - because he was unable to prevent people thinking he was. Likewise Boris is a brilliant prime minister because he continues to persuade people to think he is. And of course it remains true that nations get the governments they deserve. Particularly the case in the UK.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We haven't yet fully recovered from the global financial crisis caused by Gordon Brown.

 

[Beach Hut]

All power at all times? I didn't have you down as an anarchist

I am not an anarchist but historically all political parties are corrupt and treat their electorate with contempt - Thatcher protecting a sick Chilean murderer, Blair going into a war that killed innocent people.

 

[Rookie]

Not if she won at the tribunal I wouldn't have thought.

The point here is that it has avoided a tribunal that would have opened the whole affair up.

I didn't realise that this was trending from March, however it is still a relevant discussion given how this government behaves with with regard to the conduct of its leadership.

It depends how much it would have cost to get it to the tribunal. Multi day tribunal hearing together with all prep would have cost a tidy penny or 2. The government legal team would have weighed up the cost, the prospects of success and the fallout before coming up with a price.

It happens in every legal case - is it cheaper to pay than take it to a full hearing - this is not just a government thing.

For anyone interested in this sort of thing and the actual stories behind the overhyped headlines then the secret barrister books are very good.

 

[Baldseagull]

Simply read, all power corrupts whatever the political party

There is some truth in that, but some are corrupt and morally bankrupt by nature. My point is, if someone was having a pop at Corbyn for not dealing with anti semitism in his Party, it doesn't say anything about the rights or wrongs of that if I just say, well Neville Chamberlain didn't deal with Hitler. They are unrelated events, and one does not excuse the other.

 

[Beach Hut]

There is some truth in that, but some are corrupt and morally bankrupt by nature. My point is, if someone was having a pop at Corbyn for not dealing with anti semitism in his Party, it doesn't say anything about the rights or wrongs of that if I just say, well Neville Chamberlain didn't deal with Hitler. They are unrelated events, and one does not excuse the other.

Power corrupts be it politics, business, sport etc what is the difference on morally bankrupt by nature be it a fudged pay-off or a country taken into war with horrendous consequences where said weapons of mass destruction never existed

 

[Baldseagull]

Power corrupts be it politics, business, sport etc what is the difference on morally bankrupt by nature be it a fudged pay-off or a country taken into war with horrendous consequences where said weapons of mass destruction never existed

Well, one who has been corrupted by the power, was possibly once someone worth supporting, once had the good of the nation at heart, and maybe could be again, the other, always was, and always will be a ****.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am not an anarchist but historically all political parties are corrupt and treat their electorate with contempt - Thatcher protecting a sick Chilean murderer, Blair going into a war that killed innocent people.

That's a rather sad nihilistic view of the world. Let's imagine you're correct. What's the solution? I work in medical research and academia. I don't like shithousery so I have been actively involved in creating guidance and rules for making research more reliable. But I have colleagues who just shrug their shoulders and say 'perverse incentives, people distort their findings to suit their agendas'. Bollocks to that. And also there is a big difference between poorly trained scientists who are never challenged and genuinely believe their own findings (they are capable of better, and are increasingly doing better) and the cool cheats who just want to win (promotions, money, even fame).

I don't think Thatcher or Blair were corrupt. I don't think either treated the electorate with contempt. Boris, however, is all of that.

Many years ago I reported a former colleague, by then a professor and head of department in a nation in continental Europe, for copying word for word an article of mine to cheate a chapter in a book he had 'authored'. I saw him a year later at a meeting. He greeted me warmly, laughed and said 'it was too good to change'. That's Boris, that is. A very different class of politician. My former colleague is a big cheese in Lilliput. But Boris....what have we done

 

[Beach Hut]

That's a rather sad nihilistic view of the world. Let's imagine you're correct. What's the solution? I work in medical research and academia. I don't like shithousery so I have been actively involved in creating guidance and rules for making research more reliable. But I have colleagues who just shrug their shoulders and say 'perverse incentives, people distort their findings to suit their agendas'. Bollocks to that. And also there is a big difference between poorly trained scientists who are never challenged and genuinely believe their own findings (they are capable of better, and are increasingly doing better) and the cool cheats who just want to win (promotions, money, even fame).

I don't think Thatcher or Blair were corrupt. I don't think either treated the electorate with contempt. Boris, however, is all of that.

Many years ago I reported a former colleague, by then a professor and head of department in a nation in continental Europe, for copying word for word an article of mine to cheate a chapter in a book he had 'authored'. I saw him a year later at a meeting. He greeted me warmly, laughed and said 'it was too good to change'. That's Boris, that is. A very different class of politician. My former colleague is a big cheese in Lilliput. But Boris....what have we done

Perhaps it is a sad view but it has been historically proven power corrupts be it politics (across all parties), business, sport or indeed anywhere where people have power they simply go too far and abuse their positions however many want to re-write history. Also, I saw it first hand time and time again where I worked where occasionally people where dismissed for abusing their power.

Still, we will perhaps have to agree to disagree on this.