Scrutable

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.

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.

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

Given her track record...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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