[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

I’m not blaming Indian culture - she is Indian she will have been bought up with Indian culture... Indian workforce culture is very strict, and involves a lot of shouting at management level as a way to encourage the team to work hard. They have absolutely no malice - it’s the way the majority of them have been bought Up. It’s a cultural difference, Priti was probably extremely shocked that some of her staff were even upset


I know as my work consists of about 40% Indian people..

I'm not sure its a culture thing. She was born, raised and educated in the UK so hasn't really experienced Indian "work culture". Obviously her home life experience could be different but she has worked for a long time in UK politics and so should know her behaviour was not suitable when shouting and swearing at staff. If you can't manage a team without resorting to verbal abuse and threats, you're not a good manager

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

Well firstly I would need to see the claims and evidence (I do not see any compelling evidence that Priti acted maliciously), and secondly determine what actually occurred. It may just be Priti’s management style - having come from India, a county with an extremely strict management style (shouting is the norm here) where people are held accountable if work is not complete. Yes it may be difficult to work under to but bully is a strong word

These claims may be completely exaggerated - so many people complain about their bosses to HR because they’re not performing well and therefore do not get rewarded whilst other colleagues do causing resentment and bitterness

If a full investigation resulting in Priti Patel being found guilty of bullying is not 'compelling evidence' then you aren't looking for evidence, you're looking for something to tell you what you want to hear.

The rest of this post is nothing more than downplaying of bullying and the defense of bullying itself, as well as basically saying 'she's indian, bullying is part of their culture!' Which is still downright racist.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I love it when people try to use my words against me, it never works because they don't understand the concept of context.

You're bringing up BLM in a thread completely unrelated to BLM, that says a lot.

Accepting bullying when people probably wouldn't normally on the grounds of the bully being a tory and then jumping to her defense to the point that, citing examples in this thread, that people are 'snowflakes' 'overly sensitive' and that her bullying is just basically 'indian culture' says it all really. If people will defend a person in power regardless of their actions then that is cultish behaviour. Don't like it, argue against it. You're still just saying 'lol, it's not!' and that won't get you anywhere.

You called her that and then basically said that it's 'nothing new' which is basically acceptance of the situation. Why can you call her a bitch so easily, yet sidestep acknowledging that she is a bully that almost drove someone to suicide?

Using a topical example is perfectly reasonable in any debate. I know you want people to think i 'hate' BLM, but i was just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. You're basically saying - "because she's tory people can't see any wrong in her actions and will blindly support her no matter what" therefore making the torries and people who support them a cult, yes? Well i just pointed you do exactly the same with things you support. Blame others, or pretend the problem doesn't exist when they clearly do. So again, im just pointing your strikingly obvious hypocrisy!

I was pointing out that nothing really changed in the tory party, still cold hearted at it's core. Im not even defending her and you're trying to argue me, just strange!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Swan

Using a topical example is perfectly reasonable in any debate. I know you want people to think i 'hate' BLM, but i was just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. You're basically saying - "because she's tory people can't see any wrong in her actions and will blindly support her no matter what" therefore making the torries and people who support them a cult, yes? Well i just pointed you do exactly the same with things you support. Blame others, or pretend the problem doesn't exist when they clearly do. So again, im just pointing your strikingly obvious hypocrisy!

I was pointing out that nothing really changed in the tory party, still cold hearted at it's core. Im not even defending her and you're trying to argue me, just strange!

You still can't say that she's a bully, huh? So strange. Why is that? Why can't you simply say 'Priti Patel is a bully'?

There's no hypocrisy here, you're desperate to get one over on me by bringing up something irrelevant. Like always, you can't argue against what I'm saying so you're bringing up random things and incorrect statements just to stay in the game.

Stick to the topic, your obsession with bringing BLM into everything has no relevance to Priti Patel.

[Nicky91]

it's ok that Boris has a good sense of loyalty to his government, but Priti i guess was in the wrong, and should've been sacked from her job

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You still can't say that she's a bully, huh? So strange. Why is that? Why can't you simply say 'Priti Patel is a bully'?

There's no hypocrisy here, you're desperate to get one over on me by bringing up something irrelevant. Like always, you can't argue against what I'm saying so you're bringing up random things and incorrect statements just to stay in the game.

Stick to the topic, your obsession with bringing BLM into everything has no relevance to Priti Patel.

What is wrong with you?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Swan

What is wrong with you?

So nothing to say in return except gaslighting? Thought so.

Also, you are still not admitting that Priti Patel is a bully despite an independent investigation stating she is just that, a bully.

[Cherie]

I suspect she still has a job due to the colour of her skin

[Crimson Dynamo]

New Labour was built on Campbell's bullying of staff and media as i recall?

[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

a full investigation resulting in Priti Patel being found guilty of bullying is not 'compelling evidence' then you aren't looking for evidence, you're looking for something to tell you what you want to hear.

The rest of this post is nothing more than downplaying of bullying and the defense of bullying itself, as well as basically saying 'she's indian, bullying is part of their culture!' Which is still downright racist.

I would say exactly the same about the court trial between Johnny Depp and The Sun / Amber Heard . You didn’t seem to view the court decision as evidence at all. You seem to pick and choose when you are going to use ‘evidence’ as part of your argument in order to fit your own beliefs

[arista]

She has said Sorry

Case Closed.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by arista

She has said Sorry

Case Closed.

My attorney when my job try sacking me for slapping a Karen

[arista]

[The Slim Reaper]

The PSC will deal with her.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

She has said Sorry

Case Closed.

I don't think it is arista.

There's a growing number of Con MPs not too pleased at how this is being seen.

I don't think this is ended at all.

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by arista

She has said Sorry

Case Closed.

No

[Crimson Dynamo]

we need strong leaders
not hand wringers

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

I would say exactly the same about the court trial between Johnny Depp and The Sun / Amber Heard . You didn’t seem to view the court decision as evidence at all. You seem to pick and choose when you are going to use ‘evidence’ as part of your argument in order to fit your own beliefs

Except you completely got the wrong end of the stick about what that case was for and what it meant and thus the conclusion you've drawn is completely wrong, it's hilarious when someone is so smug yet so wrong.

It was a libel trial to decide whether Johnny Depp had actually hit Amber Heard, there was evidence he had but my argument in that thread was always that the situation was more complicated than that, the trial wasn't a domestic abuse trial, it was a trial to establish one fact and whether a newspaper committed libel or not. They hadn't in regards to Depp hitting Heard but the situation was more complicated than just that given the evidence that came to light about Heard's abuse and general psychotic behaviour. My argument was less about the results of the trial and more about the domestic abuse itself, which you would have known if you actually knew the first thing you were talking about.

Also an independent investigation is a completely different thing to a trial, which shouldn't really have to be said... But then again you are defending a bully that pushed someone to attempt suicide and you've smeared an entire race of people to do it so I can't expect too much of you.

But again, like you bringing up BLM, Depp has absolutely nothing to do with Priti Patel, and you're just trying and failing to lash out at me because you have absolutely no argument against what I'm saying. A libel trial is not an investigation and I'm not denying the result of the libel trial. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept what doesn't go with your narrative and that's as clear as day. You can try to project that onto me, but I'll blow that argument up every time.

[Tom4784]

Imagine being so indoctrinated that you think bullying someone to the point of suicide is being a 'strong leader'.

[Beso]

Sack her.

[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

we need strong leaders
not hand wringers

[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Except you completely got the wrong end of the stick about what that case was for and what it meant and thus the conclusion you've drawn is completely wrong, it's hilarious when someone is so smug yet so wrong.

It was a libel trial to decide whether Johnny Depp had actually hit Amber Heard, there was evidence he had but my argument in that thread was always that the situation was more complicated than that, the trial wasn't a domestic abuse trial, it was a trial to establish one fact and whether a newspaper committed libel or not. They hadn't in regards to Depp hitting Heard but the situation was more complicated than just that given the evidence that came to light about Heard's abuse and general psychotic behaviour. My argument was less about the results of the trial and more about the domestic abuse itself, which you would have known if you actually knew the first thing you were talking about.

Also an independent investigation is a completely different thing to a trial, which shouldn't really have to be said... But then again you are defending a bully that pushed someone to attempt suicide and you've smeared an entire race of people to do it so I can't expect too much of you.

But again, like you bringing up BLM, Depp has absolutely nothing to do with Priti Patel, and you're just trying and failing to lash out at me because you have absolutely no argument against what I'm saying. A libel trial is not an investigation and I'm not denying the result of the libel trial. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept what doesn't go with your narrative and that's as clear as day. You can try to project that onto me, but I'll blow that argument up every time.

This literally describes you in serious debates..

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

This literally describes you in serious debates..

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

This literally describes you in serious debates..

So we reached the point where you ignore what I'm saying just to go in for a baseless 'I know you are, but what am I?' insult because you can't think of anything else to say but you aren't mature enough to put your hands up and admit it.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

You are supporting the act of bullying someone to the point of suicide because blind loyalty to a party has dulled your sense of morality, if you actually ever had one.