Sir Philip Rutnam

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
greyspoke
Fuzzable
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by greyspoke » Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:23 pm

plodder wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:57 pm
...

BoAF: we don’t know *exactly* what Patel and Rutnam were bickering about, but a fiver says she didn’t make him do human sacrifice or anything illegal.

nb politicians can change the law to suit their policies. That’s their job.
An early report said she insisted a civil servant stayed up all night trying to get a Court of Appeal decision about passengers that were about to leave on that ship the next day overturned. Undoubtedly the legal advice would have been "this is the end of the line for now, you can argue the issue at a full hearing later, but you cannot reverse this decison about what happens tomorrow". So basically, asking for the impossible and wasting everyone's time.

As to changing the law, that follows. I think I made the point up-thread, ministers can try to change the law (though they may need to ask Parliament first), but until they do, civil servants can, indeed should, object to doing things that are at that time unlawful.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by plodder » Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:52 pm

Again this assumption she wanted people to break the law, rather than go against their own personal opinions (or "ideology" if you want). Civil servants aren't allowed to let their own policy preferences get in the way.

Murmur, I'm not ignoring the substance in your posts, only the weird specific-to-the-difficulties-you-historically-had-at-work strawmen.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by Gfamily » Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:17 pm

Matched by your assumption that the Civil Service was being obstructive to her demands just on political/ideological grounds.

Given her track record...
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by JQH » Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:41 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:52 pm
Again this assumption she wanted people to break the law, rather than go against their own personal opinions (or "ideology" if you want). Civil servants aren't allowed to let their own policy preferences get in the way.

Murmur, I'm not ignoring the substance in your posts, only the weird specific-to-the-difficulties-you-historically-had-at-work strawmen.
Pointing out that he had professional and legal standards to uphold is hardly a strawman.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

bmforre
Snowbonk
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by bmforre » Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:44 pm

JQH wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:41 pm
Pointing out that he had professional and legal standards to uphold is hardly a strawman.
Very much agree with murmur and JQH.

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:09 am
Location: West of the fields

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by murmur » Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:06 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:52 pm
Again this assumption she wanted people to break the law, rather than go against their own personal opinions (or "ideology" if you want). Civil servants aren't allowed to let their own policy preferences get in the way.

Murmur, I'm not ignoring the substance in your posts, only the weird specific-to-the-difficulties-you-historically-had-at-work strawmen.
And you still ignore the whole concept of professional accountability or responsibility, which my specific-to-my-old-work examples (please give examples of straw-manning?) were illustrating, and insist on describing things as personal opinion or ideology: facts, existing procedures and all the rest are rather more than matters of opinion. And shouting at employees is automatically bullying and harassment in pretty much all of the public sector, so, if she did indeed do what has been claimed she is still in the wrong.

Do you understand what professional responsibility and accountability mean?

Do you understand that shouting at employees and all the other things are agin policies,if not actually illegal, let alone piss poor management?

Do you understand the difference between giving an example from another bit of the public sector, while inviting comment from those who might know more about the civil service, and a straw man?

Do we actually need to continue this?
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by plodder » Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:13 pm

I don't know, I suppose it depends on how much you want to keep projecting your own experience about being forced to be unprofessional onto imagined conversations between Patel and Rutnam.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by plodder » Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:16 pm

I suppose that the guy who was the lead civil servant in the home office since 2017 is definitely the good guy though. Nothing bad happened there under his impartial, legal and wholly professional stewardship.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Sir Philip Rutnam

Post by noggins » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:06 pm

Nah that just shows priti is a shite even by the standards of tory hime secretaries.

Post Reply