[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Cherie

What actually killed it is accusations of your a bigot, you hate brown people, you are a racist if anyone dared have an opinion on levels of immigration or indeed voted for Brexit, its quite funny to see that argument being levied in the opposition direction, and boy is it not going down too well

In my view that was more of a reaction to certain members adopting trumpian ideology for reaction and actively seeking to rile others with their provocative statements.

But this convo is largely pointless now after so many good members left or disengaged from this subforum. The rot has set. And so we have more and more outlandish threads being created to provoke outraged response.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

In my view that was more of a reaction to certain members adopting trumpian ideology for reaction and actively seeking to rile others with their provocative statements.

But this convo is largely pointless now after so many good members left or disengaged from this subforum. The rot has set. And so we have more and more outlandish threads being created to provoke outraged response.

This is a relevant news topic unless you are referring to the numerous threads you create ad naseuem on the same topic

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

In my view that was more of a reaction to certain members adopting trumpian ideology for reaction and actively seeking to rile others with their provocative statements.

But this convo is largely pointless now after so many good members left or disengaged from this subforum. The rot has set. And so we have more and more outlandish threads being created to provoke outraged response.

It takes 3 jungle beats of a drum for users to leave the forum..why not share all the discussion in the background that's obviously been going on with every forum member..


You never know it may resolve things...all you done has further divided the forum with that post. .

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

In my view that was more of a reaction to certain members adopting trumpian ideology for reaction and actively seeking to rile others with their provocative statements.

But this convo is largely pointless now after so many good members left or disengaged from this subforum. The rot has set. And so we have more and more outlandish threads being created to provoke outraged response.

can you name say 3-4 and tell how you know they left due to SD?

You seem to have quite the inside knowledge and i am sure we would love to see your workings?

[Twosugars]

Priti Vacant and Priti Nasty

[arista]

Dezzy please try to get
back on Topic.

Your Views are Valid.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

And in every case little if any evidence other than video clips from people who hate the police as you seem to (for no reason)

In every example we can find you there belittling the police and supporting any attack on them however flimsy and inconsistent

PP is being targeted because she is a woman and asian - i am sorry if your dislike of the police in the USA bizarrely stops you from recognizing hat and its sad that this has happened

So, you've put the Helen Lovejoy act to bed and now you're going for the virtue signalling routine.

Saying 'no u' isn't going to change the fact that you've regularly discounted evidence of racially charged police brutality that doesn't suit your views. Videos of incidents of police brutality is 'misleading' to you no matter the content. You are the definition of confirmation bias and projecting that onto me won't change that.

Those topics I found just by searching 'police' but there's been more than that, your view point is always 'well, they must have done something wrong!' and when it's proven that the police is at fault you always go 'Police work is hard! I'd like to see you try it without accidentally killing black people!'

You are making a point by suggesting that anyone in this thread that has any criticism for Priti Patel is inherently racist and sexist but what does it say about you if we took YOUR logic in this thread and applied it to your own views on police brutality? Hmm?

If you're gonna try and make out that anyone who criticise Patel is a sexist racist, then I'm gonna highlight how empty that argument is by highlighting your own hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by arista

Dezzy please try to get
back on Topic.

Your Views are Valid.

It's relevant, he is using this story to call people racist in the most painfully obvious case of bad acting I've ever seen. He can't virtue signal as a method to attack others if he has views that I've highlighted, it's hypocritical.

You didn't tell your friend to get back on topic so don't tell me what to do.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

This briefing war is just the latest battle in a long history of civil servants v Home Secretaries

The knives were out for Priti Patel from the moment she was appointed Home Secretary last July.
Ms Patel is not one of those ministers who puts her head down, keeps quiet and does what she’s told.
She makes waves – and enemies – wherever she goes.

None of us really knows what transpired between Ms Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam, her now departed
permanent secretary. Sir Philip has taken the extraordinary step of making his grievances public. According
to him, Ms Patel is an all-round monster, responsible for days of hostile stories about the department.
He says he will now sue the government for constructive dismissal. Needless to say, Ms Patel denies these allegations.

It’s worth considering that, if all Sir Philip was trying to achieve was redress, he would have resigned and
quietly instructed employment lawyers. Instead, the BBC’s political editor was informed of his resignation
and he then chose to make an unprecedented public statement, timed for maximum exposure in today’s
papers, with handy texts ready for journalists.

It’s clear that he has another agenda: ensuring Ms Patel is no longer Home Secretary. The issue for those
who do not know who to believe is whether that agenda only developed this weekend with his resignation,
or whether it has been present for months.

Because one thing we know for certain: someone within the Home Office was briefing against Ms Patel.
Sir Philip has insists it wasn’t him, so one should believe him. But someone told journalists that she was
so bad a minister that the security services refused to trust her – perhaps the most damning accusation
that could be made against the Home Secretary. MI5 took the unusual step of denying this story last week.

For all the brouhaha this weekend, the history of the Home Office shows that attempts by the department
to destroy a Home Secretary are hardly unusual. When a minister seeks to take on the received wisdom,
the pattern is always the same.

In preparing my biography of David Blunkett, I spent months around the Home Office. He may have entered
office nearly 20 years ago, but what he told me is just as applicable today. The department’s problems, he said,
are in the DNA of its civil servants. “They had a policy of their own. I’ve never experienced anything quite like the
first few months here. We were running parallel policies. There were my policies and there was what officials called
‘Home Office policy’, and that was what they worked to. I had to say to them over and over again,
‘There is only one policy and it’s what we say it is.’”

This has been the story whenever the Home Office’s civil servants realise their boss won’t stick to what they
are told to do. And then the stories start to appear about how the Home Secretary is a bully, is out of his or
her depth, is unthinking, posturing and – above all – stupid.

Famously, Sir Michael Howard was anathema to the department. Like Ms Patel, he would not accept that its
role was to preside over rising crime and be passive towards criminals. When Sir Michael sacked the director-general
of the prison service, Derek Lewis, following the publication of a damning report into a series of breakouts,
Mr Lewis and his colleagues went to war with him.

You might think it reasonable for a Home Secretary to dismiss a man whose management had been described
by an independent inquiry as “a chapter of errors at every level and a naivete that defies belief”. But that sort
of accountability is not the Home Office way.

Plus ça change. One of Ms Patel’s predecessors, Amber Rudd, had her own issues with Sir Philip. She filed a
complaint against him for being “absent” during the Windrush scandal revelations which forced her resignation
in 2018. According to a leak just last week, she told the inquiry into the affair: “I find his absence inappropriate.
He was absent through my final few weeks and days. I think a good permanent secretary would lean in to a real
difficulty like this rather than sit back from it.”

Whitehall and the media will be consumed by this latest episode of "The Home Office Versus The Home Secretary"
for days. But outside the bubble, few will care. Just as the Lewis affair was an irrelevance compared with Howard’s
success in reducing crime, what matters will be Ms Patel’s record in fighting criminals.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...g-priti-patel/

[Christmas Dynasnow]

We may like to pause at this point and think about another born-above-a-corner-shop,
Right-wing grammar-school girl who was patronised, smeared and stymied by chaps in the
cosy club of power as she fought to introduce changes they didn’t approve of.



There was no doubt at all who was running the country after Margaret Hilda Thatcher
had finished with them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/po...pocracy-bully/

[Parmy]

Sounds like a man that doesn't like being told what to do by a woman of a different persuasion.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Sounds like a man that doesn't like being told what to do by a woman of a different persuasion.

and a remainer who hated the GBP telling him what to do when he knew best

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and a remainer who hated the GBP telling him what to do when he knew best

Slap head syndrome.

[arista]

PM Johnson
Confirmed he has Full Confidence
in his Home Secretary.

Ref: Ch4HD news.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by arista

PM Johnson
Confirmed he has Full Confidence
in his Home Secretary.

Ref: Ch4HD news.

that's done when the position is shaky though

[Alf]

Who's being racist to our Priti?

[Parmy]

I love that word rampant.

It remindes me of a massive erect cock

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I love that word rampant.

It remindes me of a massive erect cock

[bots]

A former aide to Priti Patel received a Ł25,000 payout from the government after claiming she was bullied by the then employment minister.

Legal correspondence seen by the BBC alleges the woman took an overdose of prescription medicine following the alleged incident in 2015.

The DWP did not admit liability and the case did not come before a tribunal.

Ms Patel is facing allegations - which she denies - that she mistreated staff in her new role as home secretary.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51705069

[Twosugars]

Priti Patel has been accused of bullying a third senior civil servant when she was the secretary of state for international development.

Whitehall sources told the Guardian that the home secretary, who is already reeling from allegations that she bullied her permanent secretary at the Home Office and an aide in the Department for Work and Pensions, had “harassed and belittled” staff in her private office in 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-says-labour



Oop, it's getting priti serious

[Christmas Dynasnow]

bullying = being told you are not doing your job you have been paid for....

[Kizzy]

She should never have been reinstated. .. she broke the ministerial code didn't she?

[Livia]

I've worked with Pritti Patel. She's a tough woman, but no tougher than any of the men. She's also very good at her job. If she had a penis, they'd all be singing a very different song now.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I've worked with Pritti Patel. She's a tough woman, but no tougher than any of the men. She's also very good at her job. If she had a penis, they'd all be singing a very different song now.

Swing low sweet chariot?

[Liam-]

She should never have been allowed back into government after being forced to resign for taking unofficial, off the book meetings with foreign bodies, so not only does she endanger national security, but she’s also a bully? Not shocked

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Liam-

She should never have been allowed back into government after being forced to resign for taking unofficial, off the book meetings with foreign bodies, so not only does she endanger national security, but she’s also a bully? Not shocked

You are aware that an allegation is an allegation.

If someone called you a bully on tibb, would you be happy if others referred to you as a bully too based on an allegation?

No, i did not think so - so please give that courtesy to the Home Secretary