UK PM Johnson backs minister over bullying report but adviser quits

By Michael Holden

 

Britain's Home Secretary Priti Patel speaks, October 1, 2019. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Friday backed one of his most senior ministers after a damning inquiry into allegations that she bullied her staff concluded she had broken rules, including shouting and swearing at them.

 

Johnson's defence of Home Secretary Priti Patel prompted the author of the report, independent adviser Alex Allan, to resign.

 

Patel had not met the standards set under Britain's Ministerial Code which states ministers should treat officials with respect, Allan had concluded. Ministers usually step down if they are found to be in breach of the code.

 

A government statement said Johnson judged the code had not been breached, however, saying that concerns had not been raised at the time and that Patel was unaware of the impact of her actions. She apologised for any upset she may have caused.

 

"The prime minister has full confidence in the home secretary and considers this matter now closed," the statement said.

 

A former senior official Philip Rutnam, whose resignation and accusations of unfair dismissal in February prompted the inquiry, said concerns about Patel had been repeatedly raised to her and that he had not been asked to give evidence.

 

"As early as August 2019, the month after her appointment, she was advised that she must not shout and swear at staff," Rutnam said in a statement.

 

The issue comes at a difficult time for Johnson, who is trying to reset his government after his top adviser Dominic Cummings left Downing Street last week. His leadership and judgment has also been questioned over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Patel was a leading supporter of Brexit before the 2016 referendum and is popular in the ruling Conservative Party. She is the minister responsible for crime, security and immigration where she has advocated a hardline stance.

 

The daughter of immigrants herself, she previously quit as aid minister in 2017 because she held undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials.

RIGHT TO RESIGN

 

Immediately after Johnson cleared Patel, Allan quit and opponents accused the prime minister of giving the green light to bullying. Johnson himself had written in the foreword to the Ministerial Code's latest version that "there must be no bullying and no harassment".

 

"I recognise that it is for the prime minister to make a judgment on whether actions by a minister amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code," Allan said. "But I feel that it is right that I should now resign from my position."

 

Johnson's government has had an uneasy relationship with senior officials, with several leaving their posts since his election win last December.

 

Patel had been accused of demeaning her staff, prompting Johnson to launch an inquiry in March to establish the facts.

 

In a summary of his advice, Allan found that Patel had become "justifiably in many instances" frustrated by officials' lack of support, and this had "manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing".

 

"Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals," Allan's advice said. "To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally."

 

Patel said it had never been her intention to upset anyone.

 

"I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people," she said. "I acknowledge that I am direct and have at times got frustrated. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his support.

 

Colleagues rallied round her, describing her as kind and courteous.

 

But opposition Labour Party leader Keir Starmer said he would have sacked her.

 

"Yet again, the prime minister has been found wanting when his leadership has been tested," Starmer said in a statement.

 

(Writing by Sarah Young and Michael Holden; Editing by Alistair Smout, Guy Faulconbridge, Angus MacSwan and Catherine Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-21

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

An off-topic post and reply have been reported and removed.  

my my

ministers shouting at staff, this will end where ???????

 

This is the idiot woman who is in charge of the department spending lots of money on things like domestic violence and bullying in school. Now the other screwballs have been told to 'make a ring around' and protect this vile piece of excrement. Having been sacked for lying and having secret suspect meetings with the Israeli government while she was, supposedly, only on holiday, she should never have been considered for a senior, junior or any position.

Note that she has not made any apology for bullying, only that she is sorry if she offended anyone. She'll not get sacked though as this government has no guts or morals whatsoever.

Maybe she was doing independent research on bullying, checking reactions etc to give her greater expertise when dealing with domestic violence and school bullying as part of her portfolio.

42 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Maybe she was doing independent research on bullying, checking reactions etc to give her greater expertise when dealing with domestic violence and school bullying as part of her portfolio.

Perhaps she can also go around knifing people as a fact finding exercise to check reactions and so on....

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

 

"The prime minister has full confidence in the home secretary and considers this matter now closed," the statement said.

Considers it closed until he performs his next u turn. 

I thought he prefered blonds but you live and learn.

2 hours ago, mrfill said:

This is the idiot woman who is in charge of the department spending lots of money on things like domestic violence and bullying in school. Now the other screwballs have been told to 'make a ring around' and protect this vile piece of excrement. Having been sacked for lying and having secret suspect meetings with the Israeli government while she was, supposedly, only on holiday, she should never have been considered for a senior, junior or any position.

Note that she has not made any apology for bullying, only that she is sorry if she offended anyone. She'll not get sacked though as this government has no guts or morals whatsoever.

 

Ah, the Israeli government?  Oh dear, oh dear....yes, definitely "suspect" and of course she should be sacked.  Who knows, if she gets away with this, we may soon be hearing that she is a Russian "asset". 

Troll post removed also an unattributed post claiming a similar case is pending.  

2 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Ah, the Israeli government?  Oh dear, oh dear....yes, definitely "suspect" and of course she should be sacked.  Who knows, if she gets away with this, we may soon be hearing that she is a Russian "asset". 

No, she's never met Trump.

13 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Not sure where you may have worked in recent years in Europe but such behaviour is unacceptable. In the UK in a private company and virtually every other context, a manager who bullied staff by shouting and swearing at them and then "briefing" against them to the press would find themself in front of an employment tribunal and would most likely be fired. There is currently such a case against the UK government by a senior career civil servant involving this minister. Boris Johnson should bit the bullet now and fire her as he will have to when the contents of that case eventually leaks, as everything does these days.

If you allow ministers to shout at staff, then as a matter of fairness you would have to allow civil servants to shout back. You can see where this would lead. These are not underlings who do filing but highly educated and highly trained individuals with decades of experience. There is an assumption that ministers and staff will treat each other with respect - the minister gets respect because they have been chosen by the PM amonst their peers to do the political job and the civil servant is respected because s/he has the knowledge, understanding and experience that the minister will need to operate effectively. An immature minister who gets frustrated because the world is not the way she wants it to be and shouts at the people who give her the bad news is unfit for this kind of office.

 

I think Sir Humphey would find this risible.  Satire though it was, "Yes, Minister" was not so wide of the mark when it came to demonstrating how the senior civil service could totally control their ministers while being utterly polite and respectful.  Of course, if this kind of control by an unelected elite is thought preferable, so be it....

3 hours ago, mrfill said:

This is the idiot woman who is in charge of the department spending lots of money on things like domestic violence and bullying in school. Now the other screwballs have been told to 'make a ring around' and protect this vile piece of excrement. Having been sacked for lying and having secret suspect meetings with the Israeli government while she was, supposedly, only on holiday, she should never have been considered for a senior, junior or any position.

Note that she has not made any apology for bullying, only that she is sorry if she offended anyone. She'll not get sacked though as this government has no guts or morals whatsoever.

 

  Criticising a person for swearing and bullying and calling them a "vile piece of excrement" and an "idiot women " in the same post ????

33 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Not sure where you may have worked in recent years in Europe but such behaviour is unacceptable. In the UK in a private company and virtually every other context, a manager who bullied staff by shouting and swearing at them and then "briefing" against them to the press would find themself in front of an employment tribunal and would most likely be fired. There is currently such a case against the UK government by a senior career civil servant involving this minister. Boris Johnson should bit the bullet now and fire her as he will have to when the contents of that case eventually leaks, as everything does these days.

If you allow ministers to shout at staff, then as a matter of fairness you would have to allow civil servants to shout back. You can see where this would lead. These are not underlings who do filing but highly educated and highly trained individuals with decades of experience. There is an assumption that ministers and staff will treat each other with respect - the minister gets respect because they have been chosen by the PM amonst their peers to do the political job and the civil servant is respected because s/he has the knowledge, understanding and experience that the minister will need to operate effectively. An immature minister who gets frustrated because the world is not the way she wants it to be and shouts at the people who give her the bad news is unfit for this kind of office.

 

   On occasions , people do get angry and annoyed and sometimes they shout and swear .

   Its human nature 

Perhaps the Civil Servants need a bollocking now and again to smarten them up. I suppose they were offended. They should read 'If'.

21 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

No, she's never met Trump.

 

  9 th post and the obligatory Trump mention , well done, you won on this thread 

1 minute ago, Gandtee said:

Perhaps the Civil Servants need a bollocking now and again to smarten them up. I suppose they were offended. They should read 'If'.

or watch 'yes minister'

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  9 th post and the obligatory Trump mention , well done, you won on this thread 

oh I am proud.

25 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

I think Sir Humphey would find this risible.  Satire though it was, "Yes, Minister" was not so wide of the mark when it came to demonstrating how the senior civil service could totally control their ministers while being utterly polite and respectful.  Of course, if this kind of control by an unelected elite is thought preferable, so be it....

With this government Alan B'Stard would be closer to it. 

So much for taking personal responsibility for one’s own actions.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So much for taking personal responsibility for one’s own actions.

 

  She has opologised and stated that it wasnt her intention to upset anybody .

  Was it you that previously claimed to have never sworn or raised your voice in your entire life ?

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  She has opologised and stated that it wasnt her intention to upset anybody .

  Was it you that previously claimed to have never sworn or raised your voice in your entire life ?

She did not apologise for her actions or words.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

She did not apologise for her actions or words.

 

  From the O.P 

 

Patel said it had never been her intention to upset anyone.

"I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people," she said. "I acknowledge that I am direct and have at times got frustrated. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his support.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

She did not apologise for her actions or words.

????............So you never got some serious verbal during your working life...?.....????..........????

3 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  From the O.P 

 

Patel said it had never been her intention to upset anyone.

"I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people," she said. "I acknowledge that I am direct and have at times got frustrated. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his support.

So she did not apologise for her actions or words, only for upsetting people. And that not even directly to the people involved.

Weak.

4 minutes ago, transam said:

????............So you never got some serious verbal during your working life...?.....????..........????

I never shouted at people I was in charge of or demeaned them. But I am not in the position of the OP.

 

Childish use of emojis btw.

Just now, stevenl said:

So she did not apologise for her actions or words, only for upsetting people. And that not even directly to the people involved.

Weak.

 

   It was her words and actions that caused them to get upset .

How about the upset people opologise to her for being incompetent and causing her to raise her voice ?

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   It was her words and actions that caused them to get upset .

How about the upset people opologise to her for being incompetent and causing her to raise her voice ?

Finally you're confirming she didn't apologise for her words and actions.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Finally you're confirming she didn't apologise for her words and actions.

 

  IMO, a simple "Sorry for upsetting you" is adequate 

26 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  She has opologised and stated that it wasnt her intention to upset anybody .

  Was it you that previously claimed to have never sworn or raised your voice in your entire life ?

I can assure you in my professional engagements I have never sworn at or balled out a subordinate - not even once.

 

Had I ever done so I would not expect ‘no intention to upset anyone’ as being an excuse.

 

Some folk behave as professionals, some are incapable of behaving professionally, the investigation into Patel’s behavior revealed she’s one of latter.