Top British home office mandarin quits over minister's behaviour

[rooster59]

Top British home office mandarin quits over minister's behaviour

By Andrew MacAskill

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Home Secretary Priti Patel leaves Downing Street in London, Britain February 13, 2020. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's top official in the ministry responsible for policing resigned on Saturday after clashes with Home Office minister Priti Patel, in the latest test of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans for overhauling how the government operates.

 

Johnson forced the resignation of his finance minister this month as part of a shake-up of how the government functions amid reports that he wants to change other top government officials.

 

Philip Rutnam said he was stepping down because he had become the "target of vicious and orchestrated campaign against him", which he alleged Patel was involved in.

 

The civil servant's resignation comes after reports last weekend of tensions between the pair and allegations that Patel mistreated officials and tried to removed Rutnam from her department, which she has denied.

 

The Home Office declined to comment on Saturday when asked for Patel's response to Rutnam's resignation and allegations.

 

Rutnam, who has worked in government for 33 years, took the unusual step of making a statement outside his home, in which he also said he would sue the government over his departure.

 

"My experience has been extreme. But I consider there is evidence that it was part of a wider pattern of behaviour," Rutnam said.

 

"I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands - behaviour that created fear."

 

NO ENGAGEMENT

 

Rutnam said he had made attempts to reconcile the situation with Patel, at the request of the prime minister.

 

"But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no efforts to engage with me to discuss this," he said.

 

Rutnam said that this gave him "very strong claims" for constructive dismissal, which he would be pursuing.

 

Mark Sedwill, the country's top civil servant, thanked Rutnam and expressed regret at his decision to resign.

 

Rutnam said the Home Office had offered him a financial settlement to avoid his public resignation – but said he hoped his decision to pursue damages would lead to changes.

 

Catherine Haddon, senior fellow at the Institute for Government, said Rutnam's comments that he had turned down a settlement could have significant ramifications.

 

"Behaviour of ministers has not been tested in court in this way," she said. "It would be extraordinary to see it played out there."

 

The opposition Labour Party called for Patel or Johnson to make a statement to the House of Commons on Monday answering questions about Rutnam's claims.

 

"Priti Patel’s own position as home secretary must now also be in question," said Stephen Doughty, a Labour lawmaker on parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee.

 

Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s senior adviser, is driving the changes to how the government functions, saying there are "profound problems" with how decisions are made.

 

Sajid Javid quit as finance minister this month after losing a power struggle with the prime minister over who should control Britain's economy.

 

In other changes, Johnson's office has already tightened its grip on the advisers who are hired by ministers to provide media and policy support.

 

Patel was forced to resign as Britain's aid minister in 2017 over undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials.

 

(Reporting by Andrew MacAskill; Editing by Alexander Smith)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-03-01

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[evadgib]

The days of 'Sir Humphries' undermining elected officials ended last December.

[Chomper Higgot]

He didn’t just quit, he’s announced he’s going to file for constructive dismissal.

 

Patel’s behaviour will be opened in court.

[evadgib]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He didn’t just quit, he’s announced he’s going to file for constructive dismissal.

 

Patel’s behaviour will be opened in court.

Those cases aren't fast tracked like Miller was. It'll last beyond the time by which the damage you're hoping for will be of any use ????

Edited March 1, 2020 by evadgib

[DoctorG]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He didn’t just quit, he’s announced he’s going to file for constructive dismissal.

 

Patel’s behaviour will be opened in court.

So will his.

[theoldgit]

46 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Those cases aren't fast tracked like Miller was. It'll last beyond the time by which the damage you're hoping for will be of any use ????

 

52 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He didn’t just quit, he’s announced he’s going to file for constructive dismissal.

 

Patel’s behaviour will be opened in court.

 

I think her behaviour could well be opened up in court, though I suspect there will be an out of court settlement as there was when Terresa May/HMG was sued when she she "forced the resignation" of a previous senior Home Office Official, and he received a substantial out of court settlement, and is now doing very nicely thank you as a consultant for various Governments.
Sir Philip had already been offered a substantial settlement by the Cabinet Office to "go quietly" but chose not to accept it, in the full knowledge that by maintaining his integrity he was in for a rough ride.
I have no problem with the Civil Service constantly evolving, it's been doing so for many years, but I do have a problem with the Johnson/Cummings/Patel coalition trying to push through their ideals with constant bullying of staff, both Johnson and Patel are proven liars, but the electorate seem to find acceptable.   

[samran]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The days of 'Sir Humphries' undermining elected officials ended last December.

You need a civil service to deliver impartial advice. All the will do is open then door for arselickers to take his place.  

[RickBradford]

29 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

I do have a problem with the Johnson/Cummings/Patel coalition trying to push through their ideals with constant bullying of staff, both Johnson and Patel are proven liars, but the electorate seem to find acceptable.   

Which bothers you more - the ideals or the bullying?

[theoldgit]

20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Which bothers you more - the ideals or the bullying?

What do you think?

 

[Proboscis]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The days of 'Sir Humphries' undermining elected officials ended last December.

I hate to break this to you but Sir Humphrie was a fictious character.

 

Anyone who thinks that the cabinet and parliament are superflous and the civil services mandrins are the ones who are really making policy are deluded. Take the example of Northern Ireland. The province ground to a halt and people suffered because no policies or budgets were being generated by the NI Assembley. People suffered because of this.

 

What is of great concern is the fact that the Johnson government appears to be following the Trump model, which is to get rid of the non-partisan senior civil servants who serve all types of governments and replace them with yes-men. The job of civil servants at senior level is to show the policy makers what the outcomes of their policies are likely to be and to serve them with the unvarnished facts. We can see the stark importance of this in the case of the Corona Virus situation. Politicians may want to present matters to suit themselves but the civil service's job is to tell it as it is. Only this way can we as voters get to choose.

 

So, if you want to know whether the GNP of a country is growing or not, you should ask the civil service. A politician may well tell you that the economy is growing at a great rate but it is only when you get your hands on the facts that you can be sure.

 

I would have thought that this is Civics 101 - but clearly not to many people.

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

What do you think?

 

I don't know. It wasn't clear from the wording. That's why I asked.

[theoldgit]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

I don't know. It wasn't clear from the wording. That's why I asked.

I have no problems with having ideals, many of which were included in their Manifesto and accepted by the electorate.
I do have a problem with the bullying and belittling of staff. 
Ministers have been working with the Civil Service for decades, Ministers set policy and Civil Servants implement that policy on behalf of Ministers, but Civil Servants have a clear duty to advise Ministers if they are acting outside of the current law.
I have no idea what happened in this case.  

[Bundooman]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He didn’t just quit, he’s announced he’s going to file for constructive dismissal.

 

Patel’s behaviour will be opened in court.

His too.

He's a 'Sir' He's been in the job 33 years. He knows 'everything about the Home Office and he thinks, obviously, that his knowledge is better than anyone else's.

Patel is the second woman that Putnam has worked for. It is the second time that he has clashed with a woman. I wonder why?

 

Maybe he thought HE should be in line for that top job and not them?

He comes across as a proper little 'girl's blouse' - doesn't like being told what to do by a woman.

I bet he did as he was told by Maggie Thatcher!

He is a prissy little pratt!

[CGW]

1 hour ago, samran said:

You need a civil service to deliver impartial advice.

Or make sure the same policies are continued with? - continuity!

We will never know ????

[Rookiescot]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[CGW]

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I agree with this "statement" for society to regain its "freedom" would mean society as a whole rejecting/destroying - to start with Google & Facebook, then Amazon and every other entity that gathers information along with the people that are forcing 5g on us!

Not going to happen, rehearse the saying - "I told you" as right now nobody is listening!

[sanemax]

19 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

How does that fit into this thread ?

[ratcatcher]

27 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Written in 1946 by Martin NieMoller regarding the cowardly lack of action by the German intellectuals, establishment & clergy.

I don't think the government of Boris Johnson has, by a long way, reached the level of Adolf Hitler's

[Gillyflower]

My husband always claimed that 'trying' to work with a woman was 'a pain in the a.se. 1. She had either had a row with boyfriend, lover or husband. 2.  The kids were acting up.  3. She had her monthlies.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, ratcatcher said:

Written in 1946 by Martin NieMoller regarding the cowardly lack of action by the German intellectuals, establishment & clergy.

I don't think the government of Boris Johnson has, by a long way, reached the level of Adolf Hitler's

But some would say he's working on it.

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, Bundooman said:

His too.

He's a 'Sir' He's been in the job 33 years. He knows 'everything about the Home Office and he thinks, obviously, that his knowledge is better than anyone else's.

Patel is the second woman that Putnam has worked for. It is the second time that he has clashed with a woman. I wonder why?

 

Maybe he thought HE should be in line for that top job and not them?

He comes across as a proper little 'girl's blouse' - doesn't like being told what to do by a woman.

I bet he did as he was told by Maggie Thatcher!

He is a prissy little pratt!

 

well,

I have no views on whether the chap functions under female bosses or not,

 

but I saw a video interview with the chap that resigned, actually saw it twice,

and it is really not clear to me why the chap actually resigned - his grounds,

he expressed some negative views on the boss (and her colleagues I think) but not really

anything clear

 

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by melvinmelvin

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, theoldgit said:

but Civil Servants have a clear duty to advise Ministers if they are acting outside of the current law.
 

 

is that so?

 

will you find this is the civil servant's job descriptions/emplyment contracts?

or maybe

to be found in some statute regulating dos and donts of civil servants

 

from where to you take that stipulation?

or is it maybe your view on how it should be?

 

[from the home of CC]

sounds as if he was a bit soft for politics..

[nauseus]

39 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

well,

I have no views on whether the chap functions under female bosses or not,

 

but I saw a video interview with the chap that resigned, actually saw it twice,

and it is really not clear to me why the chap actually resigned - his grounds,

he expressed some negative views on the boss (and her colleagues I think) but not really

anything clear

 

 

That's the CS for you.

[Thongkorn]

At last a Home Office Minister who doesn't stand <deleted>, if its too hot in the Kitchen leave,

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

How does that fit into this thread ?

My point is Johnson and his extreme right wing government are clearing house of anyone who does not hold the same views as they do. 

They have already given warning the judiciary is going to be purged.

If you voted for Johnson then you have facilitated this.

Are you happy with that?

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

Written in 1946 by Martin NieMoller regarding the cowardly lack of action by the German intellectuals, establishment & clergy.

I don't think the government of Boris Johnson has, by a long way, reached the level of Adolf Hitler's

Probably a lot of people in 1930's Germany thought the same.

Look how that turned out.

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, theoldgit said:

What do you think?

 

bullying I would hope

 

the pushing is the reason for the guys being there, that is what they are elected for

 

[Orton Rd]

Bullied by a five foot nothing woman, dear oh dear, sounds more like he did not like being told what to do by a new boss not happy with incompetence. Probably a bit of a racist as well.

[Orton Rd]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

My point is Johnson and his extreme right wing government are clearing house of anyone who does not hold the same views as they do. 

They have already given warning the judiciary is going to be purged.

If you voted for Johnson then you have facilitated this.

Are you happy with that?

Any examples of why it's an extreme right wing government, would such have an Indian as home sec and another as chancellor of the exchequer? I think not. Patel is doing a good job kicking ass to get results.