Priti Patel

[EasyforDennis]

Some of you lot must be pretty desperate if you think Patel is anywhere remotely close to decent. She looks like the biggest easter egg you have ever seen on legs.

Bet you daren't say that about Diane Abbott, the handful of snowflakes would be determined that the site had a White Christmas!

But Diane Abbott doesn't look like an Easter egg on legs.

[Bentley Bullet]

But that's not the point! The point is you wouldn't dare say she looked like an Easter egg on legs even if you thought she did, because the handful of snowflakes would be determined that the site had a White Christmas.

[roversdude]

Diane Abbot looks like an Easter Egg on legs next to PP

[EasyforDennis]

Both of you are reading something into my post that isnt there. I was comparing Patels shape to that of a large easter egg. Nothing else.

[Bentley Bullet]

What am I reading that isn't there?

[EasyforDennis]

What am I reading that isn't there?

Snowflakes and White Christmas? I wonder why you brought Diane Abbott into the discussion?
Lets face it though Priti Patel is hardly Snow White is she?

[BillyStubbsTears]

This one slipped under the radar last week.

After a year of running up legal costs, the Home Office decided not to contest Sir Philip Rutnam's constructive dismissal case after he resigned as top civil servant in the Dept due to abusive behaviour from Patel.

£340,000, he's been awarded, plus legal costs.

But Patel hasn't admitted doing it wrong.

[albie]

Doubt that award will be paid by Patel personally.
Probably paid out of public funds, so you and me to stump up on her behalf....bargain eh!

Happy to be corrected if anyone knows different.

EDIT
Answering my own question here;
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/paying-for-patels-bullying-265612

Better than paying undeserving nurses by the look of it.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe there needs to be some sort of change to the system where if an appeal is sponsored with public money the case has to go the full distance.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Maybe there needs to be some sort of change to the system where if an appeal is sponsored with public money the case has to go the full distance.

Yes that seems a cracking use of public money.  We all know in these cases the complainant has the advantage, so rightly or wrongly there's often a settlement.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Really BFYP?

A private individual has the advantage over the Govt? When the Govt is racking up legal costs over a year in a case that it has no intention of actually defending? But the claimant doesn't know that at the time and faces financial ruin if they lose and have costs awarded against them?

Let me give you the cynic's take. The HO has tried to financially bully Rutnam out of this action, then pulled out because they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on, and preferred not to have the details of Patel's actions pored over in court and a legal judgement made against her.

[Not Now Kato]

You won't see this in the Mail or the Sun etc, but....
 
“...Of further note is that the judges found that that the SSHD seriously breached her duty of candour in judicial review proceedings by failing to disclose correspondence sent by the Coroner following the inquest into the unnatural death of Carlington Spencer in IRC Morton Hall in which the Coroner had expressed severe criticism of the SSHD for attempting to remove relevant witnesses. This has sounded in an award of indemnity costs for the Applicant for the relevant period.

This is a ground-breaking judgment that marks the first time that the Secretary of State has been held accountable for her role, and failure, in ensuring the effective investigation of deaths in the immigration detention estate. It is also represents a first in confirming that the duty to ensure an effective investigation under Article 2 ECHR affects the exercise of the Secretary of State’s immigration powers. The SSHD cannot frustrate or undermine an inquiry into how and in what circumstances a vulnerable person died where Article 2 ECHR is engaged.

This case also demonstrates serious failings on behalf of the SSHD in developing any or adequate policies to ensure against compromising an investigation into a death in custody. Serious failings within the detention estate that led to a death in detention were compounded by the failures of the SSHD to comply with her Article 2 ECHR procedural requirements and ensure that best evidence was available for the subsequent coronial inquest.

This case also shows that it is not, nor should it be, incumbent on the witness to a death in custody to identify themselves as witnesses, keep in contact with the investigating authorities, and prevent their own removal, in order to ensure the effectiveness and integrity of the coronial process.

At a time when judicial review and the conduct of publically funded lawyers acting in the field of immigration and public law is under scrutiny, it is salient to observe that but for the intervention of publically-funded lawyers and last minute judicial review action, necessitated by what is now known to have been unlawful decisions to remove and failures to have in place adequate policy frameworks to ensure that evidence is secured, this important witness to a death in custody would have been removed from the jurisdiction and the coronial investigation weakened. Amongst other things, the case is a vindication of the rule of law and access to justice, guaranteed by judicial review...”
 
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/home-office-held-in-breach-of-article-2-duty-concerning-death-in-immigration-detention
 
But she still won’t resign, and Bozo won’t sack her!
 
P.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Johnson scares me in his absolute contempt for truth.

Patel in many ways is far scarier. She has a contempt for democratic process. A perfect example of a right wing authoritarian. It is astonishing that she has ever been given any high office after what she did in Israel. To have her as Home Secretary sends out a very worrying message about where we are going.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And she's back in the news again.

Nearly 35 years ago, a private investigator called Daniel Morgan was killed with an axe through the back of his head. He had been investigating police corruption.

No-one has ever been convicted of the murder, but there were lots of threads came out of it, including the fact that his business partner worked with the Murdoch-owned News of the World on hacking private data on a monumental scale.

In 2013, the Govt set up an inquiry into the case. Eight years later, the report was due to be released next week.

Patel has just blocked it.

[belton rover]

“ A Home Office spokesperson denied Patel wanted to block or censor parts of the report. They said: “Under the terms it was commissioned in 2013, it is for the home secretary to publish the report which she hopes to do as soon as possible.
“The home secretary also has an obligation to make sure the report complies with human rights and national security considerations.
“This has nothing to do with the independence of the report and the Home Office is not seeking to make edits to it.”

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes Belton, they would say that wouldn't they?

This from a Govt that commissioned an inquiry into Patel's bullying of staff, which found that Patel bullied staff, but no action was taken because Johnson decided Patel didn't bully staff.

Anyway, this particular inquiry panel has made it bluntly clear what they think of Patel blocking the report.

https://mobile.twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1394704390628560896

But you just go on insisting there's nothing to see here, eh?

[BillyStubbsTears]

This, also from a Govt that sat for a year on a report into Russian interference in our elections that said it was astonishing that the Govt hadn't instructed the security services to do a detailed search for evidence into Russian interference. And when pressed why he hadn't and wouldn't do that, Johnson said it was because he hadn't seen any evidence of Russian interference.

(I have to keep going back and checking that one because it is truly f**king surreal that a UK PM can say that and still be in the job, but that is precisely what happened.)

But still. Mustn't point these things out because...politically motivated attacks and all that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The last two paragraphs of that HO statement by the way.

They have suddenly decided they have a responsibility to ensure that an independent inquiry complies with human rights and security obligations.

But they are not seeking edits.

So, if Patel decrees that the report DOES infringe those obligations...then what? Presumably it never sees the light of day?

[drfchound]

Quite sad really that people sit and search for online news reports and Tweets and then rush to post them on a football forum.
I suppose it must be gratifying for the poster when four or five people sometimes back them up by adding their two pennorth and then discrediting anyone who dares to add a differing point of view.

[belton rover]

Billy. I’m not insisting anything. It was just a quote from the Guardian about the topic you put on here.
If both sides aren’t allowed a say then where does that leave us, eh?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Takes all sorts Hound.

In the pyramid of sadness, where do people who just tell everyone what they think about people who do that sit?

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's "bothsides" Belton.

[SydneyRover]

Quite sad really that people sit and search for online news reports and Tweets and then rush to post them on a football forum.
I suppose it must be gratifying for the poster when four or five people sometimes back them up by adding their two pennorth and then discrediting anyone who dares to add a differing point of view.

It's quite sad that you don't feel included hound, nothing stopping you joining in look how many have over the years hundreds of pages thousands of posts.

[belton rover]

It's "bothsides" Belton.

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean, Billy.
Have you had money on Oxford to win the play offs, or something?

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you don't get it Belton then you're way beyond my ability to help.

And nope. The last betbim ever going to have on football was last Xmas. £50 on the Rovers to win the playoffs.

[belton rover]

Ah well, never mind Billy. I’ll just have to try to get through the day without the help of your infinite wisdom and your superior, yet modestly articulated intelligence.

However, if anyone else can shed any light on what ‘it’s “bothsides” Belton’ means, then please let me know.

[drfchound]

Takes all sorts Hound.

In the pyramid of sadness, where do people who just tell everyone what they think about people who do that sit?

Some of your posts are becoming very strange BST.

[drfchound]

Quite sad really that people sit and search for online news reports and Tweets and then rush to post them on a football forum.
I suppose it must be gratifying for the poster when four or five people sometimes back them up by adding their two pennorth and then discrediting anyone who dares to add a differing point of view.

It's quite sad that you don't feel included hound, nothing stopping you joining in look how many have over the years hundreds of pages thousands of posts.

I would have to be in BSTs gang to be included though.
Come to think of it though, I am included whenever I post something that you don’t like.

[SydneyRover]

Quite sad really that people sit and search for online news reports and Tweets and then rush to post them on a football forum.
I suppose it must be gratifying for the poster when four or five people sometimes back them up by adding their two pennorth and then discrediting anyone who dares to add a differing point of view.

I think if you look at your post at the base of the latest off-off topic comment and reread your churlish post, you may be able to see why it elicited the responses it did, remind me were you not saying only the other day the politics should be discussed elsewhere?

Still playing the person/s rather than the topic.

[drfchound]

Quite sad really that people sit and search for online news reports and Tweets and then rush to post them on a football forum.
I suppose it must be gratifying for the poster when four or five people sometimes back them up by adding their two pennorth and then discrediting anyone who dares to add a differing point of view.

I think if you look at your post at the base of the latest off-off topic comment and reread your churlish post, you may be able to see why it elicited the responses it did, remind me were you not saying only the other day the politics should be discussed elsewhere?

Still playing the person/s rather than the topic.

Oh come on SR.
Are you saying that you don’t ever attack the poster.
Of course you do, there won’t be many on here who haven’t done that.

I think you are as guilty of it as anyone else.