FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is Raab finished too?
Is Raab finished too?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too." Raab will go, then we will presented with another scandal, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The newspapers say Liz Truss is planning a comeback, supported by right wing US Republicans" Seriously? She should be banished from politics for life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too." Hope so! The man is a complete “c” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. Hope so! The man is a complete “c”" Bit of an insult to cunts. Cunts are warm & pleasant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't see it. I get where you're coming from but to sack two, one after the other, just adds to the pressure he's under. Truss may be parachuted in but not after such a high-profile removal. It's too early for a reshuffle so I think Raab is safe by default. That said, Sunak is bloody terrible at this. " I don't think it's imminent, because losing Zahawi then Raab v close together would look really bad. But I doubt Raab's position is sustainable. There's way too much noise about all the bullying claims now. + Raab's track record in the job is shit too. I think it's only a matter of time at this point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs?" “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You have zero idea about what has actually happened. Do you honestly think a Minister can be accused of bullying and harassment on a whim? You clearly have no idea about the processes in place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs?" Have you ever been bullied or been a bully? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. " You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though." Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign. "Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again."No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully "Or his staff are wet snowflakes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though." So you think making someone feel bad about themselves and what they do, to the point it can have a damaging effect on both their mental and physical health, is okay? With the effect oof this type of behaviour not simply stopping at the workplace, as it effects family and friends too! And why does this happen? because one person decides you are not worthy of completing simple tasks in a manner they do not like, or they don't like the look of you, or maybe the sound of you. Seeing you as incompetent, making you feel you shouldn't be in the role, worthless and making you fear interaction because you know you are going to be belittled again, or spoken too or looked at like shit on his shoes. But it's okay because they are a wet lettuce who doesn't deserve to be treated like everyone else, shame on you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully "It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone. "They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
Or his staff are wet snowflakes."Rules are rules, act like a cunt you get sacked , simple really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed "It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
"It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi "Both of whom are no longer in their positions  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions "Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules "And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'. Have I said anything that is incorrect? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?"Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did "The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave"SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
"SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after. Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?"SKS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?"Btw, I don’t like the British press but do you think they should report on these stories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS
"He was hounded, he is still labour leader | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?"In cases like this the media usually get a view of the evidence, either by someone leaking it to them (being paid) or through skulking around friends and family getting a feel for the story. If they find any consistencies in reports, or if they see evidence they will start the meat grinder up. The way they drag it out is a circus | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS
"Rishi Sunak was hounded for his wife’s non Dom status | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
Btw, I don’t like the British press but do you think they should report on these stories? "Should they report them? Yes. Reporting is not the same as making it headline news for weeks on end. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS
Rishi Sunak was hounded for his wife’s non Dom status "Was he? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
Btw, I don’t like the British press but do you think they should report on these stories?
Should they report them? Yes.
Reporting is not the same as making it headline news for weeks on end. "I agree, SKS was headline news for weeks, he stayed though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS
Rishi Sunak was hounded for his wife’s non Dom status
Was he? "Yep, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
Or his staff are wet snowflakes."Lovely bit of victim blaming there! Do you also think women who wear short skirts or display their cleavage are “asking for trouble”? You know it is ok to be a decent boss and treat people well and with respect and earn their loyalty. Works wonders to develop a motivated and committed workforce! I wonder how many Civil Servants working at the heart of Whitehall you actually know? Not talking about the local job centre or passport office, but the type of people who would work directly with Ministers like Raab? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS
Rishi Sunak was hounded for his wife’s non Dom status
Was he?
Yep, "Well they obviously didn't want him sacked if he's still there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
Btw, I don’t like the British press but do you think they should report on these stories?
Should they report them? Yes.
Reporting is not the same as making it headline news for weeks on end.
I agree, SKS was headline news for weeks, he stayed though "Headline news for weeks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
Or his staff are wet snowflakes.
Lovely bit of victim blaming there!
Do you also think women who wear short skirts or display their cleavage are “asking for trouble”?
You know it is ok to be a decent boss and treat people well and with respect and earn their loyalty. Works wonders to develop a motivated and committed workforce!
I wonder how many Civil Servants working at the heart of Whitehall you actually know? Not talking about the local job centre or passport office, but the type of people who would work directly with Ministers like Raab?"I think you have asked a question that will never get answered. why? Because it was never thought about. The scenarios and people in them play out in their heads though so they must know whats going on.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
SKS
Rishi Sunak was hounded for his wife’s non Dom status
Was he?
Yep,
Well they obviously didn't want him sacked if he's still there.
"Who didn’t want him sacked? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
Btw, I don’t like the British press but do you think they should report on these stories?
Should they report them? Yes.
Reporting is not the same as making it headline news for weeks on end.
I agree, SKS was headline news for weeks, he stayed though
Headline news for weeks "Correct, and he stayed , because he was innocent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?"DC was removed 7 months later, and his sacking had nothing to do with the press or his Bernard Castle trip | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
DC was removed 7 months later, and his sacking had nothing to do with the press or his Bernard Castle trip "OK. I concede. You have bored the shit out of me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
DC was removed 7 months later, and his sacking had nothing to do with the press or his Bernard Castle trip
OK. I concede. You have bored the shit out of me."Confess that actually made me LOL  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
They’ll ‘win’ what? If that was the case he would already have been removed
It's the exact same argument plenty on here level at the 'right wing press'..
It didn’t work with Boris or Zahawi
Both of whom are no longer in their positions
Both of whom were sacked by their party for breaking the rules
And? Both of whom were hounded by 'the media'.
Have I said anything that is incorrect?
Yes, but the media didn’t get them sacked, the rule breaking did
The media played a massive part in it. To think otherwise is very niave
SKS was hounded by the press about having a curry, there was an investigation, found not guilty , he stayed
Dominic Cummings was hounded by the press for driving to Bernard castle, he says he was testing his eye sight, Boris believed him, he stayed
SKS isn't in government. DC was sacked not long after.
Can you show me an example of someone who the press has gone after that is still in their position?
DC was removed 7 months later, and his sacking had nothing to do with the press or his Bernard Castle trip
OK. I concede. You have bored the shit out of me."Thanks, unfortunately facts tend to be boring | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone. "This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
"He will be sacked, just like Zahawi | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi "Probably. But will it be fair? Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
"We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
"Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed! Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again "I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there! Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked "So no preconceptions there then? Would you like to be judged on that basis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked
So no preconceptions there then? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
"It is called intuition. He will be sacked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked
So no preconceptions there then? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
It is called intuition. He will be sacked "How do you know then
You thought Zahawi would resign. He may not have had a fair trial (you'd like that) so had to be sacked. You are lucky operating in your Manchester vacuum, living off wealth and not having to work, so you can never be sacked. Sounds ultra Tory-like to me
But good luck to you
83% tax not long away now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not just the many many accusations of bullying. Raab's also impressively incompetent. There's that too. Fucking off to the beach when he knew Afghanistan was likely to fall on his watch. He was supposed to be terrible at Justice too." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant "“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked
So no preconceptions there then? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
It is called intuition. He will be sacked
How do you know then
You thought Zahawi would resign. He may not have had a fair trial (you'd like that) so had to be sacked. You are lucky operating in your Manchester vacuum, living off wealth and not having to work, so you can never be sacked. Sounds ultra Tory-like to me
But good luck to you
83% tax not long away now "Ah the 83% tax line. During the second world war, the figure was over 99%. In the 50s and 60s it was 90%. I think it's also worth noting what other comparable countries were doing at the time and we were about par. It was only really Thatcher that slashed it away, as was in vogue at the time. She favoured taxation on consumption, not income. And in her defence, that does make sense. You need a broad tax base, relying on income tax doesn't work in times of high unemployment, which she brought. Again, wider context matters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole."Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked
So no preconceptions there then? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
It is called intuition. He will be sacked
How do you know then
You thought Zahawi would resign. He may not have had a fair trial (you'd like that) so had to be sacked. You are lucky operating in your Manchester vacuum, living off wealth and not having to work, so you can never be sacked. Sounds ultra Tory-like to me
But good luck to you
83% tax not long away now
Ah the 83% tax line. During the second world war, the figure was over 99%. In the 50s and 60s it was 90%. I think it's also worth noting what other comparable countries were doing at the time and we were about par. It was only really Thatcher that slashed it away, as was in vogue at the time. She favoured taxation on consumption, not income. And in her defence, that does make sense. You need a broad tax base, relying on income tax doesn't work in times of high unemployment, which she brought. Again, wider context matters. "I don't think Mrs Thatcher did anything that was 'in vogue' - perhaps you'd like to give us the whole history of taxation in the United Kingdom - not just the 99% bit. For context, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
He will be sacked, just like Zahawi
Probably. But will it be fair?
Do you not believe in due process? Or are you happy with guilty til proven guilty? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
We are having ‘due process’ , he will get sacked
So no preconceptions there then? Would you like to be judged on that basis?
It is called intuition. He will be sacked
How do you know then
You thought Zahawi would resign. He may not have had a fair trial (you'd like that) so had to be sacked. You are lucky operating in your Manchester vacuum, living off wealth and not having to work, so you can never be sacked. Sounds ultra Tory-like to me
But good luck to you
83% tax not long away now "He will be sacked, when did we last have 83% tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying' "I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying'
I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case?"And to add... Whether Sunak will act on this remains to be seen. He appears to be very weak. I do not know why. He must be indebted to someone or some group. He certainly is not decisive, nor does he stick to his guns. I was hopeful for some grown up politics after the kindergarten that was Johnson and Truss but so far Sunak has been very underwhelming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too." Yes. Eventually. They've been hoping it would get forgotten if the left it long enough. Like partygate etc. The "problem" is that Government does not have full control of the process, like with Zahawi so it cannot be suppressed and the press clearly know enough to be confident that they have not overreached in their reporting. Raab is a lawyer, even if universally hated as Justice Minister, so don't think he wouldn't be issuing legal threats if he could. Sunak cannot get shot of anybody including Braverman and Zahawi without external cover. He is politically weak within the party because he inherited the position. There is also a complet vacuum of talent or competence in the party following the Brexit purges. A competent Government or Minister might be given the benefit of the doubt by the press or the public. There is less tolerance when we have the situation that we do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
Or his staff are wet snowflakes."In defence of the bully... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone. "In defence of the bully, the remix... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix..."Where did I defend him? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
"Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press. That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?"I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it. If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not. That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
"You're providing an excuse and a distraction. He is being investigated. This is not a new story. There is information in the public domain. You said the same thing about Zahawi. Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this. You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not. That is just you, I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess."I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have. I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence. I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties. Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying'
I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case?"My starting position is to let the bloke have a fair hearing. It's the bedrock of justice. Do you wish to deny him that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying'
I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case?
And to add...
Whether Sunak will act on this remains to be seen. He appears to be very weak. I do not know why. He must be indebted to someone or some group. He certainly is not decisive, nor does he stick to his guns. I was hopeful for some grown up politics after the kindergarten that was Johnson and Truss but so far Sunak has been very underwhelming."Others think he's very grown up and believes in giving people a fair hearing. It's the bedrock of justice. Do you wish to deny people that? By the way, the polls are narrowing under the steadying hand of Rishi. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
"No it does not, except in the heads of the loony left | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations "You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press. Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi. Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen? What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office? Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation? If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences? Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations "The loony left thinks an investigation into Tories is to ignore facts and pretend to provide fairness to the Tories and then find against them. The increasingly absurd Harriet Harper is pretending to do this for Boris and Partygate. Yet, she has prejudiced everything by already making clear on Twitter that she thought the ex Prime Minister had lied. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're entitled to think what you like but I'd prefer to gather facts before throwing accusations around too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying'
I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case?
My starting position is to let the bloke have a fair hearing. It's the bedrock of justice.
Do you wish to deny him that? "He's getting it his fair hearing, as much as someone with so many cases against him and under investigation can expect. Should someone with a dozen reports against him for bullying still be in post? Someone accused of murder is innocent until proven guilty. Do they usually wonder around continuing as if nothing has happened? Was your favourite man Jeremy Corbyn found "guilty" of anything whilst he was being roasted in the press for anti-Semitism? Did you give him a "fair hearing" under the bedrock of justice? Incidentally, your favourite party (under the preview of Raab and Braverman) are contemplating repealing the Human Rights Act removing the right to appeal of immigrants. There's a thought on your party' view of "justice". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying'
I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case?
My starting position is to let the bloke have a fair hearing. It's the bedrock of justice.
Do you wish to deny him that?
He's getting it his fair hearing, as much as someone with so many cases against him and under investigation can expect.
Should someone with a dozen reports against him for bullying still be in post?
Someone accused of murder is innocent until proven guilty. Do they usually wonder around continuing as if nothing has happened?
Was your favourite man Jeremy Corbyn found "guilty" of anything whilst he was being roasted in the press for anti-Semitism?
Did you give him a "fair hearing" under the bedrock of justice?
Incidentally, your favourite party (under the preview of Raab and Braverman) are contemplating repealing the Human Rights Act removing the right to appeal of immigrants.
There's a thought on your party' view of "justice"."'He's getting it his fair hearing' poor English. But at least this can be unravelled. How do you know he is 'getting it his fair hearing'? The media storm suggests not. What do you mean 'as much as someone with so many cases against him'. Whether there is 1 case to answer or 1000, you agree he should get a fair hearing, right? 'Should someone with a dozen reports against him for bullying still be in post?' Yes, they should if they're innocent. 'Someone accused of murder is innocent until proven guilty. Do they usually wonder around continuing as if nothing has happened?' Wonder about what? You're comparing a civil case with a criminal case. Inappropriate analogy. Jeremy Corbyn - again a civil case so no 'finding' of guilt. The civil case caused Starmer to suspend Corbyn. I agree with that. Do you? You seem terribly confused about civil /criminal matters and the difference between 'on the balance of probabilities' and 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. I suggest Law For Dummies by John Ventura | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
This post nails it . It's obvious it's a plot by left wingers and the media to destroy him and the Conservatives. Smears, hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour is all Labour has.
Bullying is a word now used to describe managers who try to get their staff to do their job properly.
When it's Labour's Bercow, of course he's not a bully. When it's the Tories, guilty til 'proven' guilty.
Maybe but it doesn’t change the fact that Raab is a nasty piece of work who deserves to be destroyed!
Welcome back Cheshire. Good to see you all over the forum again
I think 'fact' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there!
Left-leaning, highly opinionated and preconceived remark designed to continue to destabilise a Tory Government, is what you may have meant
“Fact” yes see further up the thread. I know people who work(ed) with and for Raab. He is a nasty asshole.
Just because you know people who work(ed) with Raab, does not make it fact. Pure opinion. Too many people these days regard being asked to do the job they're paid to do properly as 'bullying'
I think I put more stock in primary evidence and first hand experience than you do. Raab is an awful person. Your starting position appears to be victim blaming. Do you honestly think the bullying and harassment policies and process in the Civil Service is so lax that Raab would be in this position were there not already sufficient evidence to make a case?
My starting position is to let the bloke have a fair hearing. It's the bedrock of justice.
Do you wish to deny him that?
He's getting it his fair hearing, as much as someone with so many cases against him and under investigation can expect.
Should someone with a dozen reports against him for bullying still be in post?
Someone accused of murder is innocent until proven guilty. Do they usually wonder around continuing as if nothing has happened?
Was your favourite man Jeremy Corbyn found "guilty" of anything whilst he was being roasted in the press for anti-Semitism?
Did you give him a "fair hearing" under the bedrock of justice?
Incidentally, your favourite party (under the preview of Raab and Braverman) are contemplating repealing the Human Rights Act removing the right to appeal of immigrants.
There's a thought on your party' view of "justice".
'He's getting it his fair hearing' poor English. But at least this can be unravelled. How do you know he is 'getting it his fair hearing'? The media storm suggests not.
What do you mean 'as much as someone with so many cases against him'. Whether there is 1 case to answer or 1000, you agree he should get a fair hearing, right?
'Should someone with a dozen reports against him for bullying still be in post?' Yes, they should if they're innocent.
'Someone accused of murder is innocent until proven guilty. Do they usually wonder around continuing as if nothing has happened?'
Wonder about what? You're comparing a civil case with a criminal case. Inappropriate analogy.
Jeremy Corbyn - again a civil case so no 'finding' of guilt. The civil case caused Starmer to suspend Corbyn. I agree with that. Do you?
You seem terribly confused about civil /criminal matters and the difference between 'on the balance of probabilities' and 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
I suggest Law For Dummies by
John Ventura "It seems necessary to take an argument to an extreme for you to grasp its significance, hence the example. Apart from the blather your position is clear. Someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them should always stay in post. Why is that different to an unproven case of anti-Semitism? Corbyn was not actually in a position of authority or power whilst under investigation for anti-Semitism. Of course it was correct to suspend him once the report was completed. Dominic Raab is in a position of power, and rather like Zahawi, in a role with a direct influence on the matter in hand. In addition to that bullying is exactly about abuse of power. The point about integrity is to be seen to do the correct thing so that there is no ambiguity. I suggest you consider your logic, and I am looking forward to your explanation of it. You were wrong about Zahawi, let's see about Raab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're making my point for me! Unproven cases of antisemitism are no different to unproven cases of bullying. I never called for Corbyn to be suspended UNTIL relevant the inquiry was over and the damning report came out. I think the same should apply to Raab." You struggle with reading, Pat. How did I explain that the two circumstances are different? Try out your reading comprehension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You and your loony left cabal seem completely confused on the difference between civil and criminal law. "Resorting to ranty name-calling is pretty much the end of your credibility | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the inquiry finds against him, he should go, just like Zahawi did. Preferring that due process takes place is not being 'wrong about Zahawi'. He remains unconvicted on tax fraud, unlike Becker and Piggott. Yet, some unhinged lefties on here have called for immediate prison time and deportation back to Baghdad! Without so much as a trial. In simultaneous threads, they bemoan the 'evil Tories' who have supposedly 'restricted immigration, disenfranchised voters, and enhanced police powers' One of your cohorts asks 'When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you?'" Oh, wait, claiming that there is a "lefty cabal" and some sort of a conspiracy is a step further in your incoherence. Impressive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?"At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel. I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects. How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with. Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing? Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You and your loony left cabal seem completely confused on the difference between civil and criminal law. "Zahawi was sacked for breaking the rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?"Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government? What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised? Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?"No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying. As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too." I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say "Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying. So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal. Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships? You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave?" I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged."As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter. I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'. I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look. I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company." We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company." No it wouldn't the person would be suspended while an investigation took place. So it's different for M.P's then I take it as he was at PMQ's last week. Must be difficult for those who have made a complaint, unless they have been given paid leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before." We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before." When did the civil service become full of lefties? Why hasn’t this ‘problem’ been sorted since the tories have been in power for 13 years ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated."You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated". You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?"I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla. They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue. Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?
I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla.
They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue.
Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully."You do realise that never happened and there are a number of complaints against him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples."I didn't say specifically politicians did I? Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?"Of course you're correct. He deflects often with daft return questions as his argument slowly collapses. He's boxed himself into a hypocritical corner where he no longer believes in 'innocent until proven otherwise' but bemoans the 'vicious' new laws by the Tories taking all our freedoms away! You could not invent such nonsense! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?
I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla.
They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue.
Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully.
You do realise that never happened and there are a number of complaints against him "How do you know it 'never happened'. The Inquiry has not concluded. Are you involved in the Inquiry? Why does 'a number of complaints' entitle you to assume he's guilty? Would you do this if you were called for jury service? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?
I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla.
They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue.
Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully."A distinct possibility. Let's wait for the Inquiry
The loony left though like to pre judge and like Harriet Harman, they make their minds up first and then hold an expensive Inquiry.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?
I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla.
They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue.
Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully."Oh, right. This is all playing out in your head. Incontrovertible. How do we solve this imagined "problem" then? Personal pledges of loyalty to the current political party? "Deprogramming" of all civil servants to an approved way of thinking? A purge of those engaged in "woke" activities and thinking? It really is not possible that the current Government's policies are poorly planned and executed and that Raab is actually a bully? Your reality seems pretty paranoid. Shame for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave?" I'm not. He's innocent until an Inquiry may find otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You and your loony left cabal seem completely confused on the difference between civil and criminal law.
Zahawi was sacked for breaking the rules "
For the record, which ones. Civil or criminal? I know the answer by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?"We don't know. There's an Inquiry underway which hasn't reported yet. He could be a bully. He might not be. Do you work on the Inquiry. Why are you leaking.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?
I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla.
They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue.
Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully."Complete and utter crap sorry! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?"Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers. This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in. What would you, actually, like to discuss? Does trial by media happen? Yes. Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye. However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree? Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern? You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You and your loony left cabal seem completely confused on the difference between civil and criminal law.
Zahawi was sacked for breaking the rules
For the record, which ones. Civil or criminal? I know the answer by the way. "Why does it matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've all seen how this goes. Rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. More rumblings. We're told there's nothing to see. Earthquakes and volcanos. We're assured there's nothing to see. Then a sudden resignation/sacking. It happened with Zahawi recently. Feels like it's building towards happening to Raab too. I am shocked that he wasn't suspended, have the complainants been given paid leave? I don't know what the process is. It is interesting that his defenders on this thread either won't address that point or feel that it's fine for him to continue in post. It wouldn't happen in any private company. We all know that Tory Ministers are dealing with a Civil Service that is full of lefties desperate to stop the Tories from achieving anything. The Civil Service has long given up any pretence of being impartial or professional. And when they aren't being partial and obstructive they are totally unproductive, which we know has got far worse since March 2020. I'm guessing Raab has asked a few people to actually do the jobs they are paid to do and they are immediately crying "bullying", in part due to being politically motivated and in part because they have been so poorly managed historically and nobody has ever expected them to actually produce anything worthwhile before. We all "know" this do we?
How has this manifested itself exactly? Is the failure of Conservative Government policy due to a conspiracy of some sort? It's not possible that it's just crap policy?
Has it always been full of "lefties" or is this a recent occurrence?
You are, indeed "guessing", with zero knowledge. It sounds like victim blaming as it couldn't possibly be because Raab is, in fact, a bully, could it?
I imagine it goes something like this. Civil servant who has been "working from home" since March 2020 has to go into office to meet Raab. This is already unsatisfactory as they have to get up before 9 to catch a train, or even several buses if their comrades are on strike, or they have forgotten to charge the Tesla.
They don't agree with Raab's policy anyway, and having spent years being indoctrinated into believing that all that matters is "their truth" rather than it being their job to impartially implement government policy, this is also a big issue.
Finally Raab asks them to deliver a report by some deadline in the next month. This is the final straw as they have other plans (new series on Netflix, post Christmas peloton classes etc). Much easier to contact the Union and berate Raab for being a bully.
Oh, right. This is all playing out in your head.
Incontrovertible.
How do we solve this imagined "problem" then?
Personal pledges of loyalty to the current political party? "Deprogramming" of all civil servants to an approved way of thinking?
A purge of those engaged in "woke" activities and thinking?
It really is not possible that the current Government's policies are poorly planned and executed and that Raab is actually a bully?
Your reality seems pretty paranoid. Shame for you."There we have it. Calls a fellow poster 'paranoid' as though he has a mental illness Simply for daring to express a view that could be correct. We don't know, there's an Inquiry. You may be right ultimately, so may the person you have just bullied by denouncing him as 'paranoid' Shame on you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond."I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist 
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond."I've considered them and they're deflection by numerous questions - your usual policy. I'm with FastandFeisty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point."A thousand hear hears | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Of course you're correct. He deflects often with daft return questions as his argument slowly collapses.
He's boxed himself into a hypocritical corner where he no longer believes in 'innocent until proven otherwise' but bemoans the 'vicious' new laws by the Tories taking all our freedoms away!
You could not invent such nonsense! "Aw, have you found a little friend, Pat? That's nice for you. You don't even make an argument, you try desperately to talk about something else. It doesn't work, although your Labrador like loyalty to those who continue to let you down is somewhat tragic. Have I actually said that Raab is "guilty" of anything? No, Pat, I haven't. You seem to believe that someone facing multiple accusations of bullying should stay in post when no public or moderately sized organisation does. You also seem to believe that Raab will not, eventually, be removed from office, as you did about Zahawi. You, naively, seem to believe that political expediency will not see Raab removed from office. You seem to believe that publicly stating that this is a Government of integrity means that you do not need to demonstrate that integrity. I am also amused by your insistence that everybody who disagrees with you must be a "lefty". It does demonstrate a distinct lack of imagination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears "The press do not "get someone out". Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done? Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns. I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully. Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back. What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I've considered them and they're deflection by numerous questions - your usual policy.
I'm with FastandFeisty "Of course you are. You have no actual ability to address any points that are contrary to your position. You are really very good at filling up posts with spam though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you."Not sure why I have to keep correcting you. I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press. I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people. Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You and your loony left cabal seem completely confused on the difference between civil and criminal law.
Zahawi was sacked for breaking the rules
For the record, which ones. Civil or criminal? I know the answer by the way. "Civil, rules are rules, he broke them, he was sacked, Raab will be next, it really is that simple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already"You still haven't said what you have decided "the topic" is, although the OP is: "Is Raab finished too?" What have you actually addressed that? Is it pertinent that trial by media exists? In what context here? Is that what will prove or disprove that Raab is a bully? Is trial by media what has led to the investigation? Should there not be an investigation? Should the press not hold Government to account when it says that it will act with integrity and senior Ministers appear to be failing to do so? What point are you actually trying to make? I do not not know why you are now intimating that I think that I am "superior" to anybody. You can think whatever you like, but that is between you and your own ego. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
You still haven't said what you have decided "the topic" is, although the OP is:
"Is Raab finished too?"
What have you actually addressed that? Is it pertinent that trial by media exists? In what context here?
Is that what will prove or disprove that Raab is a bully? Is trial by media what has led to the investigation?
Should there not be an investigation?
Should the press not hold Government to account when it says that it will act with integrity and senior Ministers appear to be failing to do so?
What point are you actually trying to make?
I do not not know why you are now intimating that I think that I am "superior" to anybody. You can think whatever you like, but that is between you and your own ego."9 questions? No thanks. I'm not the one with the ego round here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
You still haven't said what you have decided "the topic" is, although the OP is:
"Is Raab finished too?"
What have you actually addressed that? Is it pertinent that trial by media exists? In what context here?
Is that what will prove or disprove that Raab is a bully? Is trial by media what has led to the investigation?
Should there not be an investigation?
Should the press not hold Government to account when it says that it will act with integrity and senior Ministers appear to be failing to do so?
What point are you actually trying to make?
I do not not know why you are now intimating that I think that I am "superior" to anybody. You can think whatever you like, but that is between you and your own ego.
9 questions? No thanks.
I'm not the one with the ego round here " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
You still haven't said what you have decided "the topic" is, although the OP is:
"Is Raab finished too?"
What have you actually addressed that? Is it pertinent that trial by media exists? In what context here?
Is that what will prove or disprove that Raab is a bully? Is trial by media what has led to the investigation?
Should there not be an investigation?
Should the press not hold Government to account when it says that it will act with integrity and senior Ministers appear to be failing to do so?
What point are you actually trying to make?
I do not not know why you are now intimating that I think that I am "superior" to anybody. You can think whatever you like, but that is between you and your own ego.
9 questions? No thanks.
I'm not the one with the ego round here "Excellent and really on topic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already "Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? "doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions"People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Up to them who they vote for,you have no say in it" Mmmhmmm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people."I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much! I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack. "But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again. Is Raab finished too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?"I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack. "Do you not feel embarrassed that the only argument you have is "what about Labour from 20 years ago"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you? "As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished. This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers. In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity". None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
Do you not feel embarrassed that the only argument you have is "what about Labour from 20 years ago"?"Not in the slightest because first, history is important and second it's not 'arguing' It's viewpoints. And I have others. I'm sure you are not so narrow minded so as to have no other views apart from those opposed to the present Government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob"."Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen. I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling. But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
Do you not feel embarrassed that the only argument you have is "what about Labour from 20 years ago"?
Not in the slightest because first, history is important and second it's not 'arguing'
It's viewpoints. And I have others. I'm sure you are not so narrow minded so as to have no other views apart from those opposed to the present Government.
"Fair play to you. Although you do back up my long term claim that the Tories will win the next election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
"I didn't say that Dominic Raab "should" go. You seem to struggle with comprehension as someone so pedantic about the language. The question was: "Is Raab finished or not?" I understand now. You have been having your own argument about something else together with various other non-relevant diversions. I never stated that I did not believe in fair inquiries, although I would tend not to write that word with a capital "I" as you have done. Deliberately, no doubt due to your lack of knowledge rather than accidentally. I am not a "lefty" either despite your shrill insistence on the matter. Being opposed to the behaviour and policies of the current Government or you does not require left wing political views at all. I wouldn't need to ask the same questions repeatedly if you were able to address them. Are there any of yours that I have failed to respond to? You seem unable to reciprocate even out of courtesy let alone to embark on genuine debate. Impressively smug and condescending response about perceived smug condescension though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
"Is Dominic Raab finished too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
"I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am. I believe there should be a fair inquiry. I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent. I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights. "Why would Dominic Raab wish to demonstrate that ths is an important principle through leading by example? It's not as if this is his responsibility as the Minister of Justice... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
Do you not feel embarrassed that the only argument you have is "what about Labour from 20 years ago"?
Not in the slightest because first, history is important and second it's not 'arguing'
It's viewpoints. And I have others. I'm sure you are not so narrow minded so as to have no other views apart from those opposed to the present Government.
Fair play to you.
Although you do back up my long term claim that the Tories will win the next election. "I've seen this claim a lot. I'm not sure you really believe it. I think you post in this way in case 1992 plays out again. In 1990 and 1991, the Tories were over 20 points behind in the polls, due to the poll tax etc, but won the 1992 election by a clear margin. So if 92 plays out again in 24/25, you won't lose face. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights. "What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted? How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights.
What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted?
How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated? "It's because bullying is an abuse of power. Consequently it is not appropriate for someone under investigation for such abuse remaining in power when it involves the well being of those who are supposed to be on his care as much as under his command. You cannot make sense of that? You seem to be being melodramatic again with talk of tagging and incarceration. Why do other organisations suspend people from their roles with far fewer accusations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is v odd Sunak hasn't at least suspended Raab while his investigation is ongoing. What does Sunak gain by keeping him in post in this way? Sunak could easily have suspended Raab then made all the noises about we need to complete the process etc... As things stand, things are likely just to mount more & more. And more dirt is likely to come out. Sunak's people are now running round trying to say Sunak knew nothing about all this Raab situation beforehand - which is incredibly unlikely. Feels like Pincher all over again." Political weakness. He does not command a clear faction in the Conservative party, and certainly has little influence over the more extreme elements, so he's a bit stuck. He clearly has to go through the steps of the investigation but cannot "upset" anyone. All a bit "soft" really. Like society, and particularly civil servants, according to some. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights.
What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted?
How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated?
It's because bullying is an abuse of power. Consequently it is not appropriate for someone under investigation for such abuse remaining in power when it involves the well being of those who are supposed to be on his care as much as under his command.
You cannot make sense of that?
You seem to be being melodramatic again with talk of tagging and incarceration.
Why do other organisations suspend people from their roles with far fewer accusations?"Ah, I wondered how long the 'not appropriate' line would take to come out. The left always decides what is appropriate. You have a lefty blind-spot bias, totally comfortable with Corbyn not being suspended during the Inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Remember, the Labour Party was served with an unlawful act notice after an investigation into antisemitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found it responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination. Only then was he suspended. Jews had to sit through that, however painful it was, knowing it was the right thing to do thanks to due process. It was painful for them, but fair to Mr Corbyn. Why do you think Dominic Raab should be treated differently? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights.
What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted?
How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated?
It's because bullying is an abuse of power. Consequently it is not appropriate for someone under investigation for such abuse remaining in power when it involves the well being of those who are supposed to be on his care as much as under his command.
You cannot make sense of that?
You seem to be being melodramatic again with talk of tagging and incarceration.
Why do other organisations suspend people from their roles with far fewer accusations?"And why are you answering for Mr Waffle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Raab was accused of leaving staff feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Raab in post at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad. Well, I suspect it seems bad to anyone who cares about the lives of others anyway." Corbyn was accused of leaving Jews feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Corbyn with the whip and as an MP at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad to some. Or were you comfortable with the pain Jews went through whilst they waited patiently for the Inquiry to conclude? Is it one process for the Tories and another for Labour politicians at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Raab was accused of leaving staff feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Raab in post at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad. Well, I suspect it seems bad to anyone who cares about the lives of others anyway. Corbyn was accused of leaving Jews feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Corbyn with the whip and as an MP at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad to some. Or were you comfortable with the pain Jews went through whilst they waited patiently for the Inquiry to conclude? Is it one process for the Tories and another for Labour politicians at all? " Corbyn shouldnt be in the role where he (or his team) made someone feel suicidal,I agree. Especially if the person raised a formal complaint. Ps having looked this up, the person who came up in the top result wasn't Jewish. Was there more than one ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I have read regarding suspension, it is not mentioned in the procedural guidelines for a complaint against an M.P which surprised me. It however states that there is a mediation process which all complaints can be subject to if mediation works then the process stops there. If not it goes to a full complaint, so I take it mediation was not wanted by the accusers and instead they opted for a full investigation. The investigation will go ahead if the accused complaint is found to have factual bases, i.e witnesses, texts etc to back up the complaint. Sio I take it there is evidence or the investigation would not be taking place." I found out that in serious cases an M.P can be suspended. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights.
What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted?
How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated?
It's because bullying is an abuse of power. Consequently it is not appropriate for someone under investigation for such abuse remaining in power when it involves the well being of those who are supposed to be on his care as much as under his command.
You cannot make sense of that?
You seem to be being melodramatic again with talk of tagging and incarceration.
Why do other organisations suspend people from their roles with far fewer accusations?
Ah, I wondered how long the 'not appropriate' line would take to come out. The left always decides what is appropriate.
You have a lefty blind-spot bias, totally comfortable with Corbyn not being suspended during the Inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Remember, the Labour Party was served with an unlawful act notice after an investigation into antisemitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found it responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination. Only then was he suspended. Jews had to sit through that, however painful it was, knowing it was the right thing to do thanks to due process. It was painful for them, but fair to Mr Corbyn.
Why do you think Dominic Raab should be treated differently?
"I would have been completely comfortable with Corbyn being suspended whilst under investigation. It's just that he wouldn't have been suspended from any position of power or responsibility over others so it would only have been symbolic. There is purpose in Raab showing a degree of responsibility and integrity in stepping back from his role whilst under investigation, let alone being suspended. Good effort and saying lefty as many times as possible though. Again, do you happen to know why it is normal practice for most organisations to suspend those under investigation for bullying? Perhaps you don't believe that is the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights.
What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted?
How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated?
It's because bullying is an abuse of power. Consequently it is not appropriate for someone under investigation for such abuse remaining in power when it involves the well being of those who are supposed to be on his care as much as under his command.
You cannot make sense of that?
You seem to be being melodramatic again with talk of tagging and incarceration.
Why do other organisations suspend people from their roles with far fewer accusations?
And why are you answering for Mr Waffle? "My answer... I don't know what the risk is. But if something is serious enough for an inquiry, and it relates to well being, it suggests there is a risk. Unless you think bullying has no risk to others safety (which I include wellbeing). Maybe you're quibbling saftey as being the right word. In which case, substitute a word that works for you. Maybe I should say "preventing harm". Taking him away from a position of power prevents him harming those people. Same reason I'd take a school teacher accused of inappropriate behaviour out to a school. But I'm a melodramatic lefty like that. Which I can live with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The evidence I have seen indicates that Raab is a bit abrasive and demands high standards. Neither of those traits is bullying. Maybe more like him are needed to make the wet lettuces in the Civil Service grow up a bit and actually do what they are supposed to in their jobs? “The evidence I have seen” as in NONE! All you have seen is what you have read in the media and none of that will have been based on confidential internal documents. You are correct. "The reports I have seen" would be more accurate. I stand by the second half of my post though. Raab will be sacked / forced to resign.
Unfortunately you may be correct, meaning that the Civil Service blob has won again.
No, it means he broke the rules and is a bully
It actually makes no odds whether he broke the rules and bullied anyone. If the media (and I include social media) make enough noise/print enough stories then they'll win and he'll be gone.
In defence of the bully, the remix...
Where did I defend him?
Your implication that any "fuss" is due to the press.
That was your implications, wasn't it? If not, what was your point?
I didn't imply anything. I straight up said it.
If the media make enough noise he'll be gone, guilty or not.
That doesn't mean he isnt guilty, does it?
You're providing an excuse and a distraction.
He is being investigated. This is not a new story.
There is information in the public domain.
You said the same thing about Zahawi.
Politically, and professionally he should have gone long ago. In fact, he should have resigned or sidelined himself to prevent further embarrassment. In the private sector he would have gone long before this.
You have demonstrated a tendency to defend those in power rather than those who are not.
That is just you, I guess.
I am providing nothing of the sort. We have seen trial by media on more than enough occasions for me to have the opinion I have.
I'm pretty sure said nothing about the press and Zahawi, feel free to provide evidence.
I haven't said he shouldnt go if he's guilty. In the private sector, the likelihood is that he would be been placed on gardening leave pending an investigation. You know, an investigation to gather facts and provide fairness to all parties.
Once again, I've demonstrated nothing. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to think what you like about me but I'd prefer you to gather facts before throwing accusations
You're correct, it's only bullying you provide a list of possible "misunderstandings" and musings about "unfair" treatment by press.
Although you did feel that we should "wait and see" what the result of all of the information in the public space told us about Zahawi.
Give us the alternative view. How might those who "believe" that they've been bullied and could "just get another job" feel and expect to happen?
What are the circumstances under which Raab may actually be a bully and removed from office?
Should someone with multiple complaints against him still be in post whilst under investigation?
If the press did not maintain this level of reporting, would there even have been an investigation and would we find out the result and would there be consequences?
Priti Patel has never been "proven guilty" but several hundred pounds were paid to the person who brought a claim against her. What does that mean?
At thread about Raab is now talking about Zahawi and Patel.
I've said many many times on here, this is why we can't have actual adult debates on particular subjects.
How about we actually speak about my post which you took offence with.
Am I wrong in that we've seen trial by media enough times for me to assume it's a real thing?
Am I entitled to the opinion that I hold?
Zahawi and Patel are pertinent to the topic. You raised the subject of "proving someone guilty" as being important. Is that the only measure with respect to integrity and corruption in Government?
What examples have you where "trial by media" has removed someone who was innocent of the offence raised?
Why should the press not keep the subject of Raab's bullying accusations live, especially when Sunak publicly states that he would have a Government of "integrity"? Should someone with multiple accusations of bullying against them not step back from their post until the investigation is compete, especially as they are the Justice Minister?
No they are not pertinent to the topic. The topic is Raab and his bullying.
As for your 'questions'. I genuinely can't be arsed, your not actually interested in what anyone with possible opposing views has to say
Raab and his bullying as a Minister of State which makes it worthy of ongoing press attention beyond the wider (according to you "soft") societal interest in workplace bullying.
So Priti Patel certainly of relevance and Zahawi being a Minister mired in scandal.
Do you treat all matters in isolation as if there are no wider relationships?
You seem to frequently "not be arsed" with many people as soon as your position is challenged.
As it happens, yes I do treat all matters in isolation when we're speaking about a specific matter.
I also have no problem being 'challenged', however, there comes a point when you're asked 20 questions because of one stance that you 'give up'. It's boring and we will get nowhere. As i said already, youre not interested in what I say, you're just interested in thinking you know what I'm saying so you can 'win'.
I mean, you asked if I have examples of trial by media, there's thousands of examples if you'd like to go look.
I shouldn't really be surprised, this is how you've always operated.
You do seem unable to identify in yourself the same behaviour as you accuse others of. "This is how you've always operated".
You are the one claiming press pogroms being a problem so you should be able to provide a few examples where they have gone after politicians without cause? Surely you can conjure up a few from your "thousands" of examples.
I didn't say specifically politicians did I?
Are you denying that trial by media isn't a thing in this country?
Ah, so this is not specifically about Raab then? It is generally about press behaviour, but not generally about politics or the behaviour of Government Ministers.
This really is a confusing set of parameters to be operating in.
What would you, actually, like to discuss?
Does trial by media happen? Yes.
Is there usually some verifiable facts at the route of it? Yes, but it is certainly disputable if they are justified with respect to people not in the public eye.
However, when the topic is a Government which has publicly stated that it will be one of integrity that shines a spotlight on it's behaviour in that respect, wouldn't you agree?
Should someone facing multiple accusations of bullying serious enough to require investigation remain in-post, regardless of what is in the press? You know, taken in isolation? Does the fact that they are a the Minister for Justice make this more or less a matter for concern?
You don't like questions, so I'm confident that you won't answer as you "can't be arsed", so I'll just let you and everyone else consider them further as you fail to respond.
I don't like questions
So you took exception with me saying if the press want him out they'll get him out. Now you say trial by media does exist
Have I said he should remain in post?
As for your last statement, confident that I won't reply? You were wrong, this is your problem, far too confident in thinking you know what other people think. Stick to the topic and you may just find out rather than guessing, keep derailing and you'll never get to the point.
A thousand hear hears
The press do not "get someone out".
Did they "get out" Zahawi, or did he actually do all of the things that he was reported to have done?
Oh, wait, that isn't relevant is it? Neither are any other instances of media campaigns.
I did not "take exception" to you stating that trial by media existed. I took exception to you implication that that was the only reason that Raab's bullying was being investigated because, in reality, people are just soft. Also your implication that the only reason that he will be removed from office is because of the press, not because he is, in fact, a bully.
Your definition of "not being arsed" is a curious one as you keep coming back.
What is "the topic" that you define that we stick to? You still haven't said and it seems to wander depending on what is convenient to you.
Not sure why I have to keep correcting you.
I have at no point said the only reason he will be sacked is the press.
I have at no point said he hasn't bullied people.
Why do you keep trying to win? Is it because you truly believe your superior to others? I think I know the answer to that already
Oh good, the whole gang's here
So, what is your opinion on the OP.
Is Raab finished or not? doesn't really matter what we think,same as all the other topics here,other people make the decisions
People could influence things by not relentlessly voting for a political party openly displaying such distain for British people.
I stopped voting Labour in 2005 thank you very much!
I'm not fooled by SKS frequently now enveloping himself in the Union Jack.
But you are fooled by the Conservative party again and again.
Is Raab finished too?
I'm waiting to read the Inquiry after due and fair process
What about you?
As this is a speculative thread based on recent events, then yes, I think that it is very likely that he is also finished.
This is based on the unprecedented number of accusations against him in two separate ministries and his reputation amongst his own Ministerial peers.
In addition there is political pressure of continued reputational damage to both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who has claimed that he would head a Government of "integrity".
None of this has anything to do with grammar, criminal or civil law or a "plot" by "lefties" or the civil service "blob".
Then we have a different viewpoint. I don't think someone should go just because of the number of accusations against them in however many ministries. Reputation alone is insufficient. Mixing up civil and criminal law as some do on here, the Birmingham 6 had pretty poor reputations. They were innocent. In fact that case shows that even after due process, miscarriages of justice can happen.
I believe in the fullest possible, fairest possible Inquiries. You don't seem to even believe in those, despite your much vaunted Lefty credentials. How confused you seem on this, law, investing, grammar, spelling.
But some might say, if awards could be given out for smug, condescending replies where deflection by a thousand questions is a thing, well who knows what you could achieve?
I have no idea if I'm seen as a leftie. I'm probably left of the IMF so that must mean I am.
I believe there should be a fair inquiry.
I also believe the inquiry should be published regardless of the outcome. Government and its officials should be transparent.
I also believe there is a sufficient case for him to be suspended. This isn't a case of guilt, but one of safety, given the volume and nature of the accusations. There is a duty of care to consider here as well as personal rights.
What are your 'safety' concerns? Do you fear someone may be physically assaulted?
How does suspending him eliminate that risk? Do you think he should be tagged and monitored at home? Or incarcerated?
It's because bullying is an abuse of power. Consequently it is not appropriate for someone under investigation for such abuse remaining in power when it involves the well being of those who are supposed to be on his care as much as under his command.
You cannot make sense of that?
You seem to be being melodramatic again with talk of tagging and incarceration.
Why do other organisations suspend people from their roles with far fewer accusations?
And why are you answering for Mr Waffle? "I'm not answering for him I am merely making my my own points, because I wish to? Do I need to seek permission from you to do so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Raab was accused of leaving staff feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Raab in post at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad. Well, I suspect it seems bad to anyone who cares about the lives of others anyway. Corbyn was accused of leaving Jews feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Corbyn with the whip and as an MP at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad to some. Or were you comfortable with the pain Jews went through whilst they waited patiently for the Inquiry to conclude? Is it one process for the Tories and another for Labour politicians at all? " Jews felt suicidal as a consequence of Jeremy Corbyn's comments? Why would that be the case?Where was this reported? How would suspending Corbyn change their circumstances? Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect, again? Raab's suspension would not be to stop people previously made to feel under such stress better, it would be to ensure that it does not happen to others whilst the investigation is on-going. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Raab was accused of leaving staff feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Raab in post at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad. Well, I suspect it seems bad to anyone who cares about the lives of others anyway. Corbyn was accused of leaving Jews feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Corbyn with the whip and as an MP at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad to some. Or were you comfortable with the pain Jews went through whilst they waited patiently for the Inquiry to conclude? Is it one process for the Tories and another for Labour politicians at all? Jews felt suicidal as a consequence of Jeremy Corbyn's comments? Why would that be the case?Where was this reported? How would suspending Corbyn change their circumstances? Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect, again? Raab's suspension would not be to stop people previously made to feel under such stress better, it would be to ensure that it does not happen to others whilst the investigation is on-going." The JC Corbyn accused of doing most to inflame antisemitism 'since Second World War' Tbf it's a real accusation. Albeit not from someone Jewish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Raab was accused of leaving staff feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Raab in post at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad. Well, I suspect it seems bad to anyone who cares about the lives of others anyway. Corbyn was accused of leaving Jews feeling suicidal. Pretty sure this was mentioned before. So keeping Corbyn with the whip and as an MP at the risk of people's lives seems pretty bad to some. Or were you comfortable with the pain Jews went through whilst they waited patiently for the Inquiry to conclude? Is it one process for the Tories and another for Labour politicians at all? Jews felt suicidal as a consequence of Jeremy Corbyn's comments? Why would that be the case?Where was this reported? How would suspending Corbyn change their circumstances? Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect, again? Raab's suspension would not be to stop people previously made to feel under such stress better, it would be to ensure that it does not happen to others whilst the investigation is on-going. The JC Corbyn accused of doing most to inflame antisemitism 'since Second World War' Tbf it's a real accusation. Albeit not from someone Jewish. " I agree. I'm not defending Corbyn. I think there was a political case for suspending Corbyn was there really was significant antipathy towards him from the Jewish community. Inflaming antisemitism is not the same as making any Jews from feeling suicidal though. It's also not the same as the bullying of individuals. Nor would suspending him "protect" anyone from possible further harm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is v odd Sunak hasn't at least suspended Raab while his investigation is ongoing. What does Sunak gain by keeping him in post in this way?" He gains not setting a precedent. If he were to suspend Raab based on accusations, then he'd have to suspend any other cabinet minister if an accusation were made. And it wouldn't be long before accusations got made against all of them. Also, a suspension would be seized upon by the opposition as 'proof' that Sunak thinks that Raab is guilty, and that Sunak is therefore incompetent for putting Raab in office in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
