FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > rabbbb
rabbbb
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday " He will still be an mp will he not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And out he goes! " It will be very interesting to see the report after he said the bar was set very low.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday " Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie "Why does it make Sunak look weak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie "He didn't need to ask him. Raab said he would resign if the report concludes he had bullied. That he has done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?"Anything to have a jibe, that's all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Anything to have a jibe, that's all "Raab is definitely a bully, IMHO he is a cunt and Sunak is weak , feel free to disagree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't stand Raab, but the bullying allegations are probably, mostly, thin-skinned people who can't handle some robust criticism or challenge. The term "Bullying" should be reserved for primary school. Grown adults claiming that they have been bullied really do need to grow up. We need a reset. People from universities are wrapped in cotton wool and have 'safe spaces' and have to have 'trigger warnings' that a book may contain some non PC content. If you're wrapped in cotton wool and treated like a toddler your whole educational life, then a criticism or an overheard swear word might be 'scary' and lead to allegations of 'bullying'. These are the people who now find themselves in the civil service and politics. People wholly unprepared for the robustness of high-pressure work environments. In this modern world where words can mean whatever you want, then you can say you are being 'bullied' just because your manager said that your work was not up to scratch. There's no proper definition of bullying in the workplace, so anybody who feels aggrieved can say they are being bullied. " Couldn't have put it better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?"He didn’t sack a bully yesterday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't stand Raab, but the bullying allegations are probably, mostly, thin-skinned people who can't handle some robust criticism or challenge. The term "Bullying" should be reserved for primary school. Grown adults claiming that they have been bullied really do need to grow up. We need a reset. People from universities are wrapped in cotton wool and have 'safe spaces' and have to have 'trigger warnings' that a book may contain some non PC content. If you're wrapped in cotton wool and treated like a toddler your whole educational life, then a criticism or an overheard swear word might be 'scary' and lead to allegations of 'bullying'. These are the people who now find themselves in the civil service and politics. People wholly unprepared for the robustness of high-pressure work environments. In this modern world where words can mean whatever you want, then you can say you are being 'bullied' just because your manager said that your work was not up to scratch. There's no proper definition of bullying in the workplace, so anybody who feels aggrieved can say they are being bullied. " I can't support this view, bullying can destroy a persons confidence and impact their family and friends forever. I have seen a confident self starter friend who was constantly challenged on everything he did by a manager. He then started to question everything he was doing, he never knew if he was doing the right thing and it spilled into his family life. It broke him after just 12 months, he left his job, lost his wife and home. Bullying comes in many flavours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't stand Raab, but the bullying allegations are probably, mostly, thin-skinned people who can't handle some robust criticism or challenge. The term "Bullying" should be reserved for primary school. Grown adults claiming that they have been bullied really do need to grow up. We need a reset. People from universities are wrapped in cotton wool and have 'safe spaces' and have to have 'trigger warnings' that a book may contain some non PC content. If you're wrapped in cotton wool and treated like a toddler your whole educational life, then a criticism or an overheard swear word might be 'scary' and lead to allegations of 'bullying'. These are the people who now find themselves in the civil service and politics. People wholly unprepared for the robustness of high-pressure work environments. In this modern world where words can mean whatever you want, then you can say you are being 'bullied' just because your manager said that your work was not up to scratch. There's no proper definition of bullying in the workplace, so anybody who feels aggrieved can say they are being bullied. " There were numerous cases of bullying against him, there was an investigation that found him guilty of bullying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't stand Raab, but the bullying allegations are probably, mostly, thin-skinned people who can't handle some robust criticism or challenge. The term "Bullying" should be reserved for primary school. Grown adults claiming that they have been bullied really do need to grow up. We need a reset. People from universities are wrapped in cotton wool and have 'safe spaces' and have to have 'trigger warnings' that a book may contain some non PC content. If you're wrapped in cotton wool and treated like a toddler your whole educational life, then a criticism or an overheard swear word might be 'scary' and lead to allegations of 'bullying'. These are the people who now find themselves in the civil service and politics. People wholly unprepared for the robustness of high-pressure work environments. In this modern world where words can mean whatever you want, then you can say you are being 'bullied' just because your manager said that your work was not up to scratch. There's no proper definition of bullying in the workplace, so anybody who feels aggrieved can say they are being bullied. I can't support this view, bullying can destroy a persons confidence and impact their family and friends forever. I have seen a confident self starter friend who was constantly challenged on everything he did by a manager. He then started to question everything he was doing, he never knew if he was doing the right thing and it spilled into his family life. It broke him after just 12 months, he left his job, lost his wife and home. Bullying comes in many flavours." Exactly, well said, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
He didn’t sack a bully yesterday
"Considered or knee jerk, I know which one I would pick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" there should be a by-election but then I hold that belief for MPs who cross the floor. " Absolutely this if an MP crosses the floor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?"Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report "If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely. Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Anything to have a jibe, that's all
Raab is definitely a bully, IMHO he is a cunt and Sunak is weak , feel free to disagree "That doesn't answer the question. I know you've answered further down but do you really want knee jerk reactions in politics? Or would you prefer to see considered reactions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He will be back in a few months. Would like to know the specifics and see how much of a “bully” he is meant to be. " Well he has taken a list of everything he didn’t do… he is claiming it is not bullying, but people being able to keep up to his exacting standards…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked."In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There were numerous cases of bullying against him, there was an investigation that found him guilty of bullying "I'm not saying he was not 'guilty' but if we go by what you just said; since only 2 of the claims were upheld, he was therefore found 'not guilty' of 75% of the 8 official complaints made against him. This, I feel, rather supports my point that most of these accusations were either vexatious, or made by people unable to withstand a high pressure environment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
"Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
"How dare he take 24hrs to read a report. Its not like the man has anything else to do  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There were numerous cases of bullying against him, there was an investigation that found him guilty of bullying
I'm not saying he was not 'guilty' but if we go by what you just said; since only 2 of the claims were upheld, he was therefore found 'not guilty' of 75% of the 8 official complaints made against him.
This, I feel, rather supports my point that most of these accusations were either vexatious, or made by people unable to withstand a high pressure environment.
"Vexatious actions over a period could create an environment of intimidation. High pressure environments require support and team work to get the best out of people and reduce the knee jerking that causes most high pressure environments. The old days of barking until you get your own way are long gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
How dare he take 24hrs to read a report. Its not like the man has anything else to do "Maybe those that are calling Sunak weak, or took to long to make a decision are little Raab's and don't know it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
How dare he take 24hrs to read a report. Its not like the man has anything else to do
Maybe those that are calling Sunak weak, or took to long to make a decision are little Raab's and don't know it "I just think some people will moan about anything tbh. Sunak said he'd wait for the report, that was weak of him. Sunak received the report, Raab is gone within 24hrs (regardless of how), that's weak of him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line."Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie "Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming? Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie "Can you share the report you've seen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Can you share the report you've seen?"No, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter? "He resigned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... the evidence against Raab was overwhelming ... " The BBC are currently saying that 6 of the 8 complaints were not upheld, and the other 2 were only partially upheld. That doesn't sound like overwhelming evidence to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... the evidence against Raab was overwhelming ... The BBC are currently saying that 6 of the 8 complaints were not upheld, and the other 2 were only partially upheld. That doesn't sound like overwhelming evidence to me." has that been reported outside of the resignation letter ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter? "Because Raab resigned, he is a bully and IMHO a cunt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... the evidence against Raab was overwhelming ... The BBC are currently saying that 6 of the 8 complaints were not upheld, and the other 2 were only partially upheld. That doesn't sound like overwhelming evidence to me." Bullying one person is bad, 2 is just as bad, he is a bully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
Because Raab resigned, he is a bully and IMHO a cunt "I'm really not sure what your point is. Rabb resigned as he said he would if the report indicated he was in any way found to be a bully. You are blaming Sunak for being weak by not sacking him before he could resign, it isn't a race. The report is not in the public domain as far as I'm aware, you could take a leaf out of Sunak's book, maybe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... the evidence against Raab was overwhelming ... The BBC are currently saying that 6 of the 8 complaints were not upheld, and the other 2 were only partially upheld. That doesn't sound like overwhelming evidence to me.has that been reported outside of the resignation letter ?" The tolley report is out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter? "The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence. No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to. Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released."Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign "I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him."Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell "He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do. When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion. Have you read the report? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell
He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do.
When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion.
Have you read the report?"I'm not even really sure the report found that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell
He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do.
When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion.
Have you read the report?
I'm not even really sure the report found that"Tbf, I haven't read it myself but it's been said that 2 complaints were upheld and he said he'd resign if found to have bullied so I put 2+2 together | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell
He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do.
When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion.
Have you read the report?"No, have you? He resigned because he is a bully, IMHO he is a cunt aswell, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell
He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do.
When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion.
Have you read the report?
No, have you? He resigned because he is a bully, IMHO he is a cunt aswell, "I've already said I haven't. How do you know he resigned because he is a bully? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell
He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do.
When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion.
Have you read the report?
I'm not even really sure the report found that"He has previously stated that he would resign if the report found ‘any’ instances of bullying, so, why did he resign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who has digested it more than me worked out where the 2 came from? DxEU was a cleared. FCDO was found. MoJ (a group plus 5 others) was treated as a wider group it seems. Yet then said that it couldnt be used as it was a group complaint. But 5 weren't. Was the second found buried in here. I didn't find it a easy report to skim thru. " Page 27 onwards: The character and ways of working with considerations towards his expectations being reasonable, I think sheds the most light on Raab. The report does not go into specifics as far as I can tell to protect confidentiality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday Raab is a bully and a cunt, unfortunately, he is still an MP. Sunak stated that he didn’t ask him to resign, this makes him look weak, Mr Softie
Why does it make Sunak look weak?
Well sunak didn’t sack him, raab fell on his own sword… he probably had word of what was in the report
If that is the case then it is no reflection on Sunak, surely.
Sunak saying he did not ask for his resignation if correct is a simple matter of record and Raab jumoped before being sacked.
In which case how long did he need to read the report before making a decision… they received the report yesterday morning… raab also received a copy!
Sunak had the report at lunch time yesterday, the matter has come to a conclusion the following morning, that is a healthy time line.
Tbf to Sunak he sacked Zahawi immediately, the evidence against Raab was overwhelming, why wait? If he comes out and condemns Raabs behaviour then that shows strong leadership , if he doesn’t, weak, Mr Softie
Where are you getting the evidence against him was overwhelming?
Do you know what time Sunak picked up the report, read it and spoke to advisors on the matter?
The tolley report was releases an hour ago. And doesn't really suggest much evidence.
No idea why Raab resigned unless asked to.
Bi idea how fabtastic read the report an hour before it was released.
Raab resigned because he is a bully and IMHO a cunt, Sunak has stated he didn’t ask him to resign
I don't think Raab resigned because of your opinion of him.
Of course not, he resigned because he is a bully, ‘IMHO’ he is a cunt aswell
He resigned because the report found him to have bullied. That's what he said he'd do.
When you put 'and' in the same sentence it looks like you're saying he resigned because of your opinion.
Have you read the report?
No, have you? He resigned because he is a bully, IMHO he is a cunt aswell,
I've already said I haven't.
How do you know he resigned because he is a bully?"he undertook to resign if any findings of bullying were under made, and is keeping his word, as he feels duty bound to accept the outcome. To paraphrase parts of his resignation letter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see there is the usual “have you seen the report” and “what is bullying” posts. The key issues here are: 1. The allegations were considered serious enough to be investigated (do some people on here REALLY believe the Civil Service has nothing better to do then undertake investigations into Ministers!) 2. Raab obviously felt they were serious enough to not battle against and resigned. He doesn’t strike me as someone who would not put up a fight and go quietly. 3. Not like me to defend Sunak but I think his approach was right. Wait and see and give due consideration (and give his colleague time to do the honourable thing...something missing from politics since Johnson arrived in top jobs)." Only to the one person who has a lot to say having no idea whatsoever 
1. All allegations should be taken seriously.
2. Raab stuck to his word, that's actually quite refreshing.
3. I agree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who has digested it more than me worked out where the 2 came from? DxEU was a cleared. FCDO was found. MoJ (a group plus 5 others) was treated as a wider group it seems. Yet then said that it couldnt be used as it was a group complaint. But 5 weren't. Was the second found buried in here. I didn't find it a easy report to skim thru. Page 27 onwards: The character and ways of working with considerations towards his expectations being reasonable, I think sheds the most light on Raab. The report does not go into specifics as far as I can tell to protect confidentiality." Page 42 provides the conclusion. Skimming the report, it appears he wants swift accurate information, accountability and if he doesn't get it he is direct in feeding that back. His directness made some people feel it was a personal attack on them. My opinion, it is clear in the report he puts the completion of a task as a priority, without consideration to the person completing the task. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who has digested it more than me worked out where the 2 came from? DxEU was a cleared. FCDO was found. MoJ (a group plus 5 others) was treated as a wider group it seems. Yet then said that it couldnt be used as it was a group complaint. But 5 weren't. Was the second found buried in here. I didn't find it a easy report to skim thru. Page 27 onwards: The character and ways of working with considerations towards his expectations being reasonable, I think sheds the most light on Raab. The report does not go into specifics as far as I can tell to protect confidentiality." agreed. I'm struggling to support th statement that only two were found to be upheld and six dismiss. There didn't feel like a finding on MoJ either which way other than an overview view of behaviour that neither was said to be bullying or not bullying but left almosy to interpretation. Indeed, I'm not even sure which two were found to be true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who has digested it more than me worked out where the 2 came from? DxEU was a cleared. FCDO was found. MoJ (a group plus 5 others) was treated as a wider group it seems. Yet then said that it couldnt be used as it was a group complaint. But 5 weren't. Was the second found buried in here. I didn't find it a easy report to skim thru. Page 27 onwards: The character and ways of working with considerations towards his expectations being reasonable, I think sheds the most light on Raab. The report does not go into specifics as far as I can tell to protect confidentiality.agreed. I'm struggling to support th statement that only two were found to be upheld and six dismiss. There didn't feel like a finding on MoJ either which way other than an overview view of behaviour that neither was said to be bullying or not bullying but left almosy to interpretation. Indeed, I'm not even sure which two were found to be true. " 176 2 (b) 176 3 (d) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who has digested it more than me worked out where the 2 came from? DxEU was a cleared. FCDO was found. MoJ (a group plus 5 others) was treated as a wider group it seems. Yet then said that it couldnt be used as it was a group complaint. But 5 weren't. Was the second found buried in here. I didn't find it a easy report to skim thru. Page 27 onwards: The character and ways of working with considerations towards his expectations being reasonable, I think sheds the most light on Raab. The report does not go into specifics as far as I can tell to protect confidentiality.agreed. I'm struggling to support th statement that only two were found to be upheld and six dismiss. There didn't feel like a finding on MoJ either which way other than an overview view of behaviour that neither was said to be bullying or not bullying but left almosy to interpretation. Indeed, I'm not even sure which two were found to be true. 176 2 (b) 176 3 (d)" Agreed. However do you agree 176 could cover some or all of the MOJ complaints (eg six of the the eight) given they are all batched into one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548" What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?" Or those whose work wasn't up to scratch? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?" which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too? Or those whose work wasn't up to scratch? " He resigned because he is a bully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. " Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out." Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too? Or those whose work wasn't up to scratch? " He is a bully. True or false? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance." Fancy answering the question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out." as far as I can see it is only one that has been stated as unfounded. I think I've been consistent there. Even with the help of others I haven't been able to see either way how many or the DoJ 6 are founded or not. Hence querying the claim he's amde of "only 2" and that already seems to be taken as read. Having one out of 8 as unfounded gives a different view of the findings than 6 out of 8 as unfounded. Although arguably ones enough to be called a bully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out.as far as I can see it is only one that has been stated as unfounded. I think I've been consistent there. Even with the help of others I haven't been able to see either way how many or the DoJ 6 are founded or not. Hence querying the claim he's amde of "only 2" and that already seems to be taken as read. Having one out of 8 as unfounded gives a different view of the findings than 6 out of 8 as unfounded. Although arguably ones enough to be called a bully. " As I stated earlier, u haven't read the report, just going from your replies. I was responding to Easy who says: "As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully." The bully can be a bully and some people can be 'soft', it's not as black and white as he'd like to make it. If 1,2 or 6 were unfounded then it can be argued that those people are indeed a bit soft. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question?" I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing." I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs as they say. The job of government is difficult and it's not hard to see that lazy, obstructive civil servants might need a tough taskmaster. " Yep. Victims have to toughen up or leave. There's no such thing as a bully, and if there was, they'd probably get the best results. Unpleasant worldview, but not uncommon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question." Dance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance" Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out.as far as I can see it is only one that has been stated as unfounded. I think I've been consistent there. Even with the help of others I haven't been able to see either way how many or the DoJ 6 are founded or not. Hence querying the claim he's amde of "only 2" and that already seems to be taken as read. Having one out of 8 as unfounded gives a different view of the findings than 6 out of 8 as unfounded. Although arguably ones enough to be called a bully. As I stated earlier, u haven't read the report, just going from your replies. I was responding to Easy who says: "As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully." The bully can be a bully and some people can be 'soft', it's not as black and white as he'd like to make it. If 1,2 or 6 were unfounded then it can be argued that those people are indeed a bit soft." I have skimmed through the report. Hence my questions above about the MoJ grouping. I disagree. If 7 cases of bullying are found, then I'd say that these people aren't soft. It would suggest the majority of people would only complain if bullying has happened. And one of those cases wasnt just one opreson but a group complaint. So who knows how many incidents happened. I do agree that you can say both raab is a bully and some people felt bullied when they werent. However one needs to be careful with context lest it implies thsoe who were bullied are labelled as soft and so raab is not a bully. Especially as that is what he is currently whistling towards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out.as far as I can see it is only one that has been stated as unfounded. I think I've been consistent there. Even with the help of others I haven't been able to see either way how many or the DoJ 6 are founded or not. Hence querying the claim he's amde of "only 2" and that already seems to be taken as read. Having one out of 8 as unfounded gives a different view of the findings than 6 out of 8 as unfounded. Although arguably ones enough to be called a bully. As I stated earlier, u haven't read the report, just going from your replies. I was responding to Easy who says: "As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully." The bully can be a bully and some people can be 'soft', it's not as black and white as he'd like to make it. If 1,2 or 6 were unfounded then it can be argued that those people are indeed a bit soft.I have skimmed through the report. Hence my questions above about the MoJ grouping. I disagree. If 7 cases of bullying are found, then I'd say that these people aren't soft. It would suggest the majority of people would only complain if bullying has happened. And one of those cases wasnt just one opreson but a group complaint. So who knows how many incidents happened. I do agree that you can say both raab is a bully and some people felt bullied when they werent. However one needs to be careful with context lest it implies thsoe who were bullied are labelled as soft and so raab is not a bully. Especially as that is what he is currently whistling towards. " I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying, or I wrote it completely wrote. I would say any unfounded cases, it could be argued those people are soft. In the cases where the victim was found to have been bullied then I wouldn't disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs as they say. The job of government is difficult and it's not hard to see that lazy, obstructive civil servants might need a tough taskmaster. Yep. Victims have to toughen up or leave. There's no such thing as a bully, and if there was, they'd probably get the best results. Unpleasant worldview, but not uncommon." Well if you can't stand the heat and all that. Civil servants at that level are highly paid to do a tough job and be robust. Was it bullying are arse-kicking to get a job done? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out.as far as I can see it is only one that has been stated as unfounded. I think I've been consistent there. Even with the help of others I haven't been able to see either way how many or the DoJ 6 are founded or not. Hence querying the claim he's amde of "only 2" and that already seems to be taken as read. Having one out of 8 as unfounded gives a different view of the findings than 6 out of 8 as unfounded. Although arguably ones enough to be called a bully. As I stated earlier, u haven't read the report, just going from your replies. I was responding to Easy who says: "As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully." The bully can be a bully and some people can be 'soft', it's not as black and white as he'd like to make it. If 1,2 or 6 were unfounded then it can be argued that those people are indeed a bit soft.I have skimmed through the report. Hence my questions above about the MoJ grouping. I disagree. If 7 cases of bullying are found, then I'd say that these people aren't soft. It would suggest the majority of people would only complain if bullying has happened. And one of those cases wasnt just one opreson but a group complaint. So who knows how many incidents happened. I do agree that you can say both raab is a bully and some people felt bullied when they werent. However one needs to be careful with context lest it implies thsoe who were bullied are labelled as soft and so raab is not a bully. Especially as that is what he is currently whistling towards. I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying, or I wrote it completely wrote. I would say any unfounded cases, it could be argued those people are soft. In the cases where the victim was found to have been bullied then I wouldn't disagree."
I may have read a context based on other posters.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you "Is Raab a bully or is he not? Spin and dance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs as they say. The job of government is difficult and it's not hard to see that lazy, obstructive civil servants might need a tough taskmaster. Yep. Victims have to toughen up or leave. There's no such thing as a bully, and if there was, they'd probably get the best results. Unpleasant worldview, but not uncommon. Well if you can't stand the heat and all that. Civil servants at that level are highly paid to do a tough job and be robust. Was it bullying are arse-kicking to get a job done?" What does the report say? Why did he resign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance."Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult. Single point of view as per. Good day mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One part of the report that I found interesting that has not been mentioned, is those interviewed said his behaviour changed once the inquiry was announced, and if his behaviour had been as it is now there would be no reason to have complained about him. " The performance of the MoJ must have suffered considerably as a result of this change in behaviour. It's a tough environment and as a consequence Not shouting and humiliating people must have allowed everyone to be slack and lazy because they are in no way motivated to do a good job themselves. I believe that is the corollary of Dominic Raab's apologists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate "I posted what was stated in the report. 1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully? Bully? Not a bully? Are there multiple points of view? Dance an spin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I better be careful. I’m always interrupting my staff in meetings. " Who said that on its own was was bullying? Is making light of actual bullying (investigated over several months) one of the reasons it continues? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin."Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement. Dance and spin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin "Be careful words are violence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin "If they weren't bullied, then they weren't the victims of bullying, were they? You and many others have, on several occasions, insisted that there essentially is no such thing as bullying in the workplace and if there is the victim should go. "Bullying" is a meaningless term to you. I assume that remains your position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin
Be careful words are violence "...and bullying is illusory? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I better be careful. I’m always interrupting my staff in meetings. " My staff?? Do you own the company where you work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin
If they weren't bullied, then they weren't the victims of bullying, were they?
You and many others have, on several occasions, insisted that there essentially is no such thing as bullying in the workplace and if there is the victim should go.
"Bullying" is a meaningless term to you.
I assume that remains your position."Oh I maintain that if I felt I was being bullied I would leave, easy, no two ways about it. I have never ever said that workplace bullying isn't a thing. I have said that in general society is soft. Do me a favour and do not accuse me of things that haven't happened. Your very first statement on this subject today was completely one sided and at no point have you been willing to acknowledge that Raab has been found innocent of some of these accusations. As I said, one side as always. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I better be careful. I’m always interrupting my staff in meetings. My staff?? Do you own the company where you work? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs as they say. The job of government is difficult and it's not hard to see that lazy, obstructive civil servants might need a tough taskmaster. Yep. Victims have to toughen up or leave. There's no such thing as a bully, and if there was, they'd probably get the best results. Unpleasant worldview, but not uncommon. Well if you can't stand the heat and all that. Civil servants at that level are highly paid to do a tough job and be robust. Was it bullying are arse-kicking to get a job done? What does the report say? Why did he resign?" The report says Raab was aggressive and intimidating. I've had managers like that. They got things done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin
If they weren't bullied, then they weren't the victims of bullying, were they?
You and many others have, on several occasions, insisted that there essentially is no such thing as bullying in the workplace and if there is the victim should go.
"Bullying" is a meaningless term to you.
I assume that remains your position.
Oh I maintain that if I felt I was being bullied I would leave, easy, no two ways about it.
I have never ever said that workplace bullying isn't a thing. I have said that in general society is soft.
Do me a favour and do not accuse me of things that haven't happened.
Your very first statement on this subject today was completely one sided and at no point have you been willing to acknowledge that Raab has been found innocent of some of these accusations.
As I said, one side as always."So leaving a workplace with a bully is tough, but standing up to them and then having to go into work and face them every day until there is a resolution is soft? You never said that bullying is unacceptable until now not did you qualify it was what you would do. So no, I will do you no favours in the same way that I will do a bully no favours. I don't care if he was found innocent of some accusations. He is still a bully. Something that apparently you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge even now. I can imagine just how a bully a bully and victim would be treated in an organisation with that attitude in senior management. What an organisational culture. "Toxic" is the normal description. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs as they say. The job of government is difficult and it's not hard to see that lazy, obstructive civil servants might need a tough taskmaster. Yep. Victims have to toughen up or leave. There's no such thing as a bully, and if there was, they'd probably get the best results. Unpleasant worldview, but not uncommon. Well if you can't stand the heat and all that. Civil servants at that level are highly paid to do a tough job and be robust. Was it bullying are arse-kicking to get a job done? What does the report say? Why did he resign? The report says Raab was aggressive and intimidating. I've had managers like that. They got things done. " Were they government ministers? i will ask you again, why did he resign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I better be careful. I’m always interrupting my staff in meetings. My staff?? Do you own the company where you work?
"You own the company? Fair play, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs as they say. The job of government is difficult and it's not hard to see that lazy, obstructive civil servants might need a tough taskmaster. Yep. Victims have to toughen up or leave. There's no such thing as a bully, and if there was, they'd probably get the best results. Unpleasant worldview, but not uncommon. Well if you can't stand the heat and all that. Civil servants at that level are highly paid to do a tough job and be robust. Was it bullying are arse-kicking to get a job done? What does the report say? Why did he resign? The report says Raab was aggressive and intimidating. I've had managers like that. They got things done. " Actually the report said that: Raab acted in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct' Raab's conduct "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates". Did you have managers like that who "got things done"? https://news.sky.com/story/dominic-raab-resigns-the-key-findings-from-the-bullying-investigation-that-sealed-his-fate-12861896 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin
If they weren't bullied, then they weren't the victims of bullying, were they?
You and many others have, on several occasions, insisted that there essentially is no such thing as bullying in the workplace and if there is the victim should go.
"Bullying" is a meaningless term to you.
I assume that remains your position.
Oh I maintain that if I felt I was being bullied I would leave, easy, no two ways about it.
I have never ever said that workplace bullying isn't a thing. I have said that in general society is soft.
Do me a favour and do not accuse me of things that haven't happened.
Your very first statement on this subject today was completely one sided and at no point have you been willing to acknowledge that Raab has been found innocent of some of these accusations.
As I said, one side as always.
So leaving a workplace with a bully is tough, but standing up to them and then having to go into work and face them every day until there is a resolution is soft?
You never said that bullying is unacceptable until now not did you qualify it was what you would do.
So no, I will do you no favours in the same way that I will do a bully no favours.
I don't care if he was found innocent of some accusations.
He is still a bully. Something that apparently you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge even now.
I can imagine just how a bully a bully and victim would be treated in an organisation with that attitude in senior management. What an organisational culture.
"Toxic" is the normal description."Nice of you to continue to try twisting my words. I'll ask again, can you learn to read please. I have continually in the past said if Raab was found to have bullied he should go. I also said above he has been found to have bullied and I won't argue with that. I'll throw this out there, you're a bully. It's plain to see. You continually try to mansplain, gaslight and talk down to people. That's bullying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin
If they weren't bullied, then they weren't the victims of bullying, were they?
You and many others have, on several occasions, insisted that there essentially is no such thing as bullying in the workplace and if there is the victim should go.
"Bullying" is a meaningless term to you.
I assume that remains your position.
Oh I maintain that if I felt I was being bullied I would leave, easy, no two ways about it.
I have never ever said that workplace bullying isn't a thing. I have said that in general society is soft.
Do me a favour and do not accuse me of things that haven't happened.
Your very first statement on this subject today was completely one sided and at no point have you been willing to acknowledge that Raab has been found innocent of some of these accusations.
As I said, one side as always.
So leaving a workplace with a bully is tough, but standing up to them and then having to go into work and face them every day until there is a resolution is soft?
You never said that bullying is unacceptable until now not did you qualify it was what you would do.
So no, I will do you no favours in the same way that I will do a bully no favours.
I don't care if he was found innocent of some accusations.
He is still a bully. Something that apparently you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge even now.
I can imagine just how a bully a bully and victim would be treated in an organisation with that attitude in senior management. What an organisational culture.
"Toxic" is the normal description.
Nice of you to continue to try twisting my words.
I'll ask again, can you learn to read please.
I have continually in the past said if Raab was found to have bullied he should go.
I also said above he has been found to have bullied and I won't argue with that.
I'll throw this out there, you're a bully. It's plain to see.
You continually try to mansplain, gaslight and talk down to people.
That's bullying." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin
If they weren't bullied, then they weren't the victims of bullying, were they?
You and many others have, on several occasions, insisted that there essentially is no such thing as bullying in the workplace and if there is the victim should go.
"Bullying" is a meaningless term to you.
I assume that remains your position.
Oh I maintain that if I felt I was being bullied I would leave, easy, no two ways about it.
I have never ever said that workplace bullying isn't a thing. I have said that in general society is soft.
Do me a favour and do not accuse me of things that haven't happened.
Your very first statement on this subject today was completely one sided and at no point have you been willing to acknowledge that Raab has been found innocent of some of these accusations.
As I said, one side as always.
So leaving a workplace with a bully is tough, but standing up to them and then having to go into work and face them every day until there is a resolution is soft?
You never said that bullying is unacceptable until now not did you qualify it was what you would do.
So no, I will do you no favours in the same way that I will do a bully no favours.
I don't care if he was found innocent of some accusations.
He is still a bully. Something that apparently you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge even now.
I can imagine just how a bully a bully and victim would be treated in an organisation with that attitude in senior management. What an organisational culture.
"Toxic" is the normal description.
Nice of you to continue to try twisting my words.
I'll ask again, can you learn to read please.
I have continually in the past said if Raab was found to have bullied he should go.
I also said above he has been found to have bullied and I won't argue with that.
I'll throw this out there, you're a bully. It's plain to see.
You continually try to mansplain, gaslight and talk down to people.
That's bullying."You said exactly what you meant more than once and on more than one thread. I really have no tolerance for anyone who tries to deny or minimise the consequences of bullying. Gaslighting is an interesting term to use considering what you've just written. You must have just got as soft as "society" then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, I did thank God. Sometimes feathers need ruffling and arses kicking. You'd know that if you had a dog in the race. " Eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, I did thank God. Sometimes feathers need ruffling and arses kicking. You'd know that if you had a dog in the race. " ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment " That’s just the tip of the iceberg mate. He was throwing tomatoes into the bin in an aggressive manner as well. Simply not on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment " PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment " Just to be clear, the behaviour described below is "being a hard taskmaster"? Raab acted in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct' Raab's conduct "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates". https://news.sky.com/story/dominic-raab-resigns-the-key-findings-from-the-bullying-investigation-that-sealed-his-fate-12861896 Does bullying exist at all or is it imagined? If it does, is it serious? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment That’s just the tip of the iceberg mate. He was throwing tomatoes into the bin in an aggressive manner as well. Simply not on "Again, is bullying a serious matter or funny? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual the victims of bullying are soft and should toughen up or leave The bully cannot possibly be a bully. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 What about the ones that were unfounded? Did he bully them too?which ones? As far as I can see only one was stated clearly as being unfounded. Despite how he has spun it. Any that were unfounded. As far as I can see by your replies, you're now trying to spin it by saying 'only one' whereas earlier you were saying you couldn't work it out. Dance on the head of a pin as much as you like. He is a bully. Good riddance. Fancy answering the question? I'm not spinning anything. That's your accusation and I am responding to your change of subject. I made a straightforward post which you've been unable to address directly. Your spin. Keep dancing. I didn't accuse you of spin. Do learn to read. I asked: What about any that were unfounded, did he bully them too? It's a really simple question. Dance Can't even answer a simple question
Not really that uncommon for you
Is Raab a bully or is he not?
Spin and dance.
Of course you answer a question with a question. Because you're incapable of conversing like an adult.
Single point of view as per. Good day mate
I posted what was stated in the report.
1 incidence of bullying and 7 of not bullying = Not a bully?
Bully? Not a bully?
Are there multiple points of view?
Dance an spin.
Bullied some people. Didn't bully others, those people he didn't bully are still victims though according to your first statement.
Dance and spin "The inquiry basically parked some complaints due to group discussions having taken place about Raab and his behaviour. The only elements of bullying that made the cut were the the actions or words of Raab that would effect an individual. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment " Banging a desk in a show of emotion, can be written: He lost control and in anger hit a desk. That is not a good look for anyone over the age of 5. Controlling emotion and being in clear in the objective would certainly speed things up, remove ambiguity within the task and provide a quality outcome, which were the things he was getting emotional about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts "How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service. My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government. Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers. "Please just think of the tomatoes  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment Banging a desk in a show of emotion, can be written: He lost control and in anger hit a desk. That is not a good look for anyone over the age of 5. Controlling emotion and being in clear in the objective would certainly speed things up, remove ambiguity within the task and provide a quality outcome, which were the things he was getting emotional about. " Do you want human leadership or robotic leadership? I'm not saying that it's a good thing to have leaders who can't have a grip on their emotions and be clear-headed in their dealings and interactions, but humans have emotions and humans will always potentially lose control when it comes to things they care the most about/invested in the most mentally and personally. The alternative is to have technocrat leaders who are cold and dispassionate and will never offend anybody, precisely because they don't even see the societies they rule and administrate as being consisted of human beings. To them everything and everyone will be just numbers, up for rationalisation and cuts, and success/failure measured in KPI statistics that mean nothing to greater human society at large. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
Please just think of the tomatoes "Good thing I don't like tomatoes! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
Please just think of the tomatoes
Good thing I don't like tomatoes! "That’s what got Raab into trouble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
Please just think of the tomatoes
Good thing I don't like tomatoes!
That’s what got Raab into trouble. "Then the country and Raab are better off without each other. Raab's not a faultless individual nor a paragon of virtue and enlightened leadership, but at this point British society and the Civil Service are nigh ungovernable and nobody in their right minds will want to stick their head up for public office. Joke's on those who brought Raab down. Dude's set for life, he needn't work a single day for the rest of his life if he chooses not to. They brought down somebody who has nothing material to lose. And they just opened the gates for future maneouvres against their figureheads in political power with this precedent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers. "A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists. https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548 Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'? Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?"One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry. And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile. Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. " If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. " You come to the wrong place for objectivity my guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved. "Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success. That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming. The description of an abusive relationship. "I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. You come to the wrong place for objectivity my guy. "I understand. Bullying is funny to you. Even if just to try to bait me it's an interesting way to portray yourself. Does doubling down make it a "joke"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment?" Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me"."You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives. My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me".
You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives.
My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either. "Welcome to the character insinuation club mate pull up a chair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. " I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people?" Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me".
You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives.
My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either. "You're happy to let Billy's off the hook with a "that's life narrative" though. I'm very much considering your perspective and describing it far more succinctly, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me".
You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives.
My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either.
Welcome to the character insinuation club mate pull up a chair. "You're enjoying yourself today mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". " You'll just waste your time. That's his thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me".
You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives.
My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either.
Welcome to the character insinuation club mate pull up a chair.
You're enjoying yourself today mate "Life is good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing "Time to take your own advice or that of the "soft" civil servants. Brave Sir Robin runs away or he reports me to the mods for being a bully. Have a think and make your decision  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me".
You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives.
My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either.
You're happy to let Billy's off the hook with a "that's life narrative" though.
I'm very much considering your perspective and describing it far more succinctly, it seems."No, what you're doing is maliciously simplifying what I'm saying to try and score a "gotcha" against me and my argument through generalisation and word-twisting. Most people in here would just roll over and let someone like you steamroll them with your arrogance and partisan political moral high horse. I'm not most people. You're not even a real swinger. You just come off as someone who decided to make a Fab account and be only active on the Politics sub forum because you got banned from commenting on The Guardian where people like you rightly belong. And if I eat a ban for calling you out on this, so be it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing
Time to take your own advice or that of the "soft" civil servants.
Brave Sir Robin runs away or he reports me to the mods for being a bully.
Have a think and make your decision "I'm not 'soft' enough to report you
I like you being here, it provides some light entertainment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing "I know that's his thing. It's not my first clash with him. I don't say anything much in this sub forum since my last clash with him, doesn't mean I don't lurk and read. And today's the day when I have had it with him. Why do such users even get permitted to exist on Fab? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing
I know that's his thing. It's not my first clash with him. I don't say anything much in this sub forum since my last clash with him, doesn't mean I don't lurk and read. And today's the day when I have had it with him. Why do such users even get permitted to exist on Fab? "I'm just off to grab the popcorn. Need any? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers.
A seemingly never ending queue of non-apologists.
https://news.sky.com/video/adam-tolleys-investigation-found-that-dominic-raab-acted-in-an-intimidating-fashion-with-unreasonably-and-persistently-aggressive-conduct-in-a-work-place-meeting-12862548
Has your "professional" work required acting in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'?
Has it "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"?
One of my past work experience/environment has. It was also in a key industry.
And you can moralise all you want about how that's not on, that's not right, but when it comes to toxic power dynamics and leadership behaviour, it takes two hands to clap. Leaders are not predisposed to be assholes to others, it takes way more effort to be one than to be nice and get along with others you're working with harmoniously. But there will always be workers, subordinates, and factions within a work environment that thrive on being obstructive, manipulative, and exploitative of goodwill "soft touch" management on them. Give an inch, they take a mile.
Machiavelli is right. It is far better to be feared than to be loved.
Then it was a dysfunctional workplace. A failure, not a success.
That's a beautifully crafted piece of victim blaming.
The description of an abusive relationship.
"I wouldn't treat you like this if you didn't make me".
You call it victim blaming. I call it giving equal human agency and responsibility to all parties without letting someone off the hook with victimisation narratives.
My view is my prerogative. If you disagree, that's up to you. If you want to accuse me of not being able to see from your perspective, try looking in a mirror because you've got no interest in considering mine either.
You're happy to let Billy's off the hook with a "that's life narrative" though.
I'm very much considering your perspective and describing it far more succinctly, it seems.
No, what you're doing is maliciously simplifying what I'm saying to try and score a "gotcha" against me and my argument through generalisation and word-twisting.
Most people in here would just roll over and let someone like you steamroll them with your arrogance and partisan political moral high horse. I'm not most people. You're not even a real swinger. You just come off as someone who decided to make a Fab account and be only active on the Politics sub forum because you got banned from commenting on The Guardian where people like you rightly belong.
And if I eat a ban for calling you out on this, so be it. ""Someone like me"? Really? Describe "someone like me" relative to "someone like you". Already getting a bit complicated now that you've been talking about mirrors... You are welcome to think what you like about why I am on Fab. You certainly seem like a catch though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing
I know that's his thing. It's not my first clash with him. I don't say anything much in this sub forum since my last clash with him, doesn't mean I don't lurk and read. And today's the day when I have had it with him. Why do such users even get permitted to exist on Fab?
I'm just off to grab the popcorn. Need any? "Yes please, salt and butter please thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's being described as bullying is no more than being a hard taskmaster. If you can't stand someone banging a desk in a show of emotion, I suggest you find alternative employment PMSL, he is a bully, he resigned because he is a bully , these are facts
How can someone be called a "bully" if the very report about him being a bully found not a single instance in the four and a half years in question whereby he lost his temper or swore and shouted directly at somebody in the Civil Service? Without explicit examples of explicit targeting, accusations of bullying gets reduced to "he said she said" between ministers and a Civil Service which runs itself like an internal state and often finds itself in conflict with its political masters because the art of separating personal politics from professional work seems to have been utterly lost by the current Civil Service.
My sympathy is very much with Raab. The way he's been effectively forced to jump before being pushed by "No Fingerprints" Sunak is disgraceful, and Raab is right to warn that this kind of selective sniping of key government ministers with accusations that more often than not date back years in the past, sometimes even before they took their current positions of high office, is going to be weaponised by people with political ends and opposition towards any sitting government.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. Same as that question uttered during every wedding, "Does anybody object to this union? Speak now or forever hold your peace". If you don't dare speak up for yourself at the immediate time where you're being mistreated, don't expect people to white knight for you when you finally talk about it in the distant future when it's convenient for you to do so against your target of complaint who's not at his peak of power. You'll just look duplicitous and a useful idiot pawn for bigger powers. "do you disagree that the report found him to have bullied? Or is it that you have a different definition they failed to meet ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing
I know that's his thing. It's not my first clash with him. I don't say anything much in this sub forum since my last clash with him, doesn't mean I don't lurk and read. And today's the day when I have had it with him. Why do such users even get permitted to exist on Fab?
I'm just off to grab the popcorn. Need any?
Yes please, salt and butter please thank you. "You cretin. Sweet for the win | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Someone like me"? Really? Describe "someone like me" relative to "someone like you". Already getting a bit complicated now that you've been talking about mirrors... You are welcome to think what you like about why I am on Fab. You certainly seem like a catch though." Well thanks, at least I have physical evidence to back that up on my profile verification list compared to yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. by the way, surprising that Raab's hauled up by the Civil Service and lefty Grauniad shit-stirring reportage for "bullying behaviour", but nothing was ever said against Gordon Brown for throwing and breaking stuff in his office when he was in power. One rule for the Tories, one rule for Labour? When it's your guy you support, he gets a free pass. When it's someone else you despise, out comes the moral high horses! Since Raab's case has proven that no statute of limitations exists for accusations of impropriety or bullying behaviour against any individual in society or in positions of power, then let's see the same scrutiny applied on Gordon Brown now. I bet you, the only sound coming from the liberals in the Civil Service and Fleet Street will be that of crickets. If Gordon Brown was a bully then he should have been investigated. Perhaps people were moved on or paid off or too intimidated to report him. Would that have been a good thing? Was anyone in the Thatcher, Major or Cameron governments accused of bullying? Why do only "liberals" join the civil service? Not lucrative enough for "non-liberals"? Not a tough enough environment? Well, as I said in my earlier comment, since statute of limitations does not exist in black and white codifying, you get this kind of partisan bias whereby it's fine to take certain people and behaviour to task now, for things that are far milder than what others have done in the past but were more permissible/swept under the carpet because they were of the right political leaning. As to why only "liberals" join the civil service? Firstly, because it's usually "liberals" who are judged to be worthy and smart enough to join the civil service. Secondly, because it's usually "liberals" who have idealistic ideas about wanting to contribute and change society. Which as Mencken said, is almost always just a smokescreen excuse for the desire to rule. "Non liberals" have no time nor inclination for that. For the most part they just want to make good money, have a stable life, and mind their own business. I get the point though, from your perspective bullying, abuse and intimidation in the workplace are fine. You don't think that position needs any justification. Just write that rather than a word salad. Is that the same for all interactions between people? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was fine. Saying it's understandable WHY it happens, is a million MILES away from saying that it's "fine". You'll just waste your time. That's his thing
I know that's his thing. It's not my first clash with him. I don't say anything much in this sub forum since my last clash with him, doesn't mean I don't lurk and read. And today's the day when I have had it with him. Why do such users even get permitted to exist on Fab?
I'm just off to grab the popcorn. Need any?
Yes please, salt and butter please thank you.
You cretin. Sweet for the win "Mmm, not when I'm already drinking a sweet soda drink or a beer to go with it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do you disagree that the report found him to have bullied? Or is it that you have a different definition they failed to meet ? " The former, but honestly a bit of both. From the report it reads like Raab was described to have been a bully purely from what the civil servants who interacted with him described about their perspective of his behaviour towards them. A case of "if they say it is, then it is, never mind the fact that there was not a single obvious instance that can be used as evidence". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves?" Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves?" Mate, nobody's rallying for a group attempt to "bully" you in here. None of those in here commenting and supporting me against you even interact with me in other parts of the forum where I am active on. I believe in the existence of forum cliques and bullying within the forum, but I can reassure you that in this case it's none of the sort that you're describing. Go make whatever threads you wish to. Not my concern, and I never ever step into any thread made by you as a matter of principle. You've already made me break one of my principles on here specially just for you today: that I don't talk to anybody in the forums that exist on my block list. Does that make you feel better about yourself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group?" I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing?" No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Mate, nobody's rallying for a group attempt to "bully" you in here. None of those in here commenting and supporting me against you even interact with me in other parts of the forum where I am active on. I believe in the existence of forum cliques and bullying within the forum, but I can reassure you that in this case it's none of the sort that you're describing. Go make whatever threads you wish to. Not my concern, and I never ever step into any thread made by you as a matter of principle. You've already made me break one of my principles on here specially just for you today: that I don't talk to anybody in the forums that exist on my block list. Does that make you feel better about yourself? " Neither do children in a school playground. It's still bullying if the intention is to harass somebody. That is your intention. No, I won't report you. Your behaviour is more interesting. Why have I "made" you do anything? What power do I have over you? Why ever would you preemptively put me on your block list? That's weird, although someone else said they'd done that as if it said something about me rather than them. I feel fine about myself. I'm not having a rant. You've already expended a lot of words over me. I do feel special, but I'm curious to know why I seem to get you so aroused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Mate, nobody's rallying for a group attempt to "bully" you in here. None of those in here commenting and supporting me against you even interact with me in other parts of the forum where I am active on. I believe in the existence of forum cliques and bullying within the forum, but I can reassure you that in this case it's none of the sort that you're describing. Go make whatever threads you wish to. Not my concern, and I never ever step into any thread made by you as a matter of principle. You've already made me break one of my principles on here specially just for you today: that I don't talk to anybody in the forums that exist on my block list. Does that make you feel better about yourself? Neither do children in a school playground. It's still bullying if the intention is to harass somebody. That is your intention. No, I won't report you. Your behaviour is more interesting. Why have I "made" you do anything? What power do I have over you? Why ever would you preemptively put me on your block list? That's weird, although someone else said they'd done that as if it said something about me rather than them. I feel fine about myself. I'm not having a rant. You've already expended a lot of words over me. I do feel special, but I'm curious to know why I seem to get you so aroused." *gag* ?? 
You think far too highly of yourself to think that you can get me "so aroused". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me." Yet here you are, proving "something". Why would I need to report you? I don't feel intimidated by you. I'd only report someone for posting links to something like a holocaust denying website, which I have done, or sending me a directly abusive email. No, nobody from any thread is blocked until that happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Mate, nobody's rallying for a group attempt to "bully" you in here. None of those in here commenting and supporting me against you even interact with me in other parts of the forum where I am active on. I believe in the existence of forum cliques and bullying within the forum, but I can reassure you that in this case it's none of the sort that you're describing. Go make whatever threads you wish to. Not my concern, and I never ever step into any thread made by you as a matter of principle. You've already made me break one of my principles on here specially just for you today: that I don't talk to anybody in the forums that exist on my block list. Does that make you feel better about yourself? Neither do children in a school playground. It's still bullying if the intention is to harass somebody. That is your intention. No, I won't report you. Your behaviour is more interesting. Why have I "made" you do anything? What power do I have over you? Why ever would you preemptively put me on your block list? That's weird, although someone else said they'd done that as if it said something about me rather than them. I feel fine about myself. I'm not having a rant. You've already expended a lot of words over me. I do feel special, but I'm curious to know why I seem to get you so aroused. *gag* ??
You think far too highly of yourself to think that you can get me "so aroused". "You definitely missed something there. Carry on though. I don't know where you're going with this, but still curious to know why the little vein in your temple is pumping away so furiously... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"wil he wont he have a job on friday " Apologies, by-the-way. Just in case I was responsible for the hijacking of the thread. Pretty sure I wasn't, but there it is anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me. Yet here you are, proving "something". Why would I need to report you? I don't feel intimidated by you. I'd only report someone for posting links to something like a holocaust denying website, which I have done, or sending me a directly abusive email. No, nobody from any thread is blocked until that happens." I'm not trying to intimidate you. You really do think a lot of yourself don't you. I've told you before and I'll tell you again, you're not special | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me. Yet here you are, proving "something". Why would I need to report you? I don't feel intimidated by you. I'd only report someone for posting links to something like a holocaust denying website, which I have done, or sending me a directly abusive email. No, nobody from any thread is blocked until that happens. I'm not trying to intimidate you. You really do think a lot of yourself don't you. I've told you before and I'll tell you again, you're not special "Why keep telling me then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me. Yet here you are, proving "something". Why would I need to report you? I don't feel intimidated by you. I'd only report someone for posting links to something like a holocaust denying website, which I have done, or sending me a directly abusive email. No, nobody from any thread is blocked until that happens. I'm not trying to intimidate you. You really do think a lot of yourself don't you. I've told you before and I'll tell you again, you're not special
Why keep telling me then?"Because you clearly didn't get it the last time, or the time before that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying." What you're seeing is not group bullying. It's people calling out the bully. You really should go back and read some of your own posts, and see how many times you belittle others. That's bullying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. What you're seeing is not group bullying. It's people calling out the bully. You really should go back and read some of your own posts, and see how many times you belittle others. That's bullying." Welcome. Couldn't help yourself eh? Just need a version of Pat and we'll have the whole collection | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't stand Raab, but the bullying allegations are probably, mostly, thin-skinned people who can't handle some robust criticism or challenge. The term "Bullying" should be reserved for primary school. Grown adults claiming that they have been bullied really do need to grow up. We need a reset. People from universities are wrapped in cotton wool and have 'safe spaces' and have to have 'trigger warnings' that a book may contain some non PC content. If you're wrapped in cotton wool and treated like a toddler your whole educational life, then a criticism or an overheard swear word might be 'scary' and lead to allegations of 'bullying'. These are the people who now find themselves in the civil service and politics. People wholly unprepared for the robustness of high-pressure work environments. In this modern world where words can mean whatever you want, then you can say you are being 'bullied' just because your manager said that your work was not up to scratch. There's no proper definition of bullying in the workplace, so anybody who feels aggrieved can say they are being bullied. Couldn't have put it better "I suggest you read, or re-read, the above post which is spot on, irrelevant of your political leanings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me. Yet here you are, proving "something". Why would I need to report you? I don't feel intimidated by you. I'd only report someone for posting links to something like a holocaust denying website, which I have done, or sending me a directly abusive email. No, nobody from any thread is blocked until that happens. I'm not trying to intimidate you. You really do think a lot of yourself don't you. I've told you before and I'll tell you again, you're not special
Why keep telling me then?
Because you clearly didn't get it the last time, or the time before that. "Then you're just going to have to keep choosing to spend your time writing the blah blah. You are choosing to be annoyed. Perhaps you'll learn to not let it bother you and it will be a valuable life lesson, but I doubt it
Who's keeping a window open and desperately hoping to have the last word then?
Enjoy  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't stand Raab, but the bullying allegations are probably, mostly, thin-skinned people who can't handle some robust criticism or challenge. The term "Bullying" should be reserved for primary school. Grown adults claiming that they have been bullied really do need to grow up. We need a reset. People from universities are wrapped in cotton wool and have 'safe spaces' and have to have 'trigger warnings' that a book may contain some non PC content. If you're wrapped in cotton wool and treated like a toddler your whole educational life, then a criticism or an overheard swear word might be 'scary' and lead to allegations of 'bullying'. These are the people who now find themselves in the civil service and politics. People wholly unprepared for the robustness of high-pressure work environments. In this modern world where words can mean whatever you want, then you can say you are being 'bullied' just because your manager said that your work was not up to scratch. There's no proper definition of bullying in the workplace, so anybody who feels aggrieved can say they are being bullied. Couldn't have put it better
I suggest you read, or re-read, the above post which is spot on, irrelevant of your political leanings "In fairness. Bullying in the work place is well defined under the Equality Act 2010. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting turn to attempt group bullying in a thread about someone having to resign for bullying. Do you know that this is what you're doing, or do you think that it's something else? Possibly a thread about the denial of bullying or excusing bullying. Can't say that it hurts to be attacked by a group of people who hold these views and behave in this way. Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Are you accusing me of bullying you? As part of a group? I'm clearly not bullying you as you're still here and you have said that you'd leave any situation like that. Only attempting group bullying. You don't think that is what you're doing? No, you attempted to earlier but I'd never allow that, you're just someone who likes to throw their 'intellect' around. Do you feel I'm 'group bullying' you? If so, I suggest you report me. Yet here you are, proving "something". Why would I need to report you? I don't feel intimidated by you. I'd only report someone for posting links to something like a holocaust denying website, which I have done, or sending me a directly abusive email. No, nobody from any thread is blocked until that happens. I'm not trying to intimidate you. You really do think a lot of yourself don't you. I've told you before and I'll tell you again, you're not special
Why keep telling me then?
Because you clearly didn't get it the last time, or the time before that.
Then you're just going to have to keep choosing to spend your time writing the blah blah.
You are choosing to be annoyed. Perhaps you'll learn to not let it bother you and it will be a valuable life lesson, but I doubt it
Who's keeping a window open and desperately hoping to have the last word then?
Enjoy "Keeping the qindow open is normally your trick. I'll let you have it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
