High Court challenge to Boris Johnson's Patel bullying denial

Controversial: Politics & Govt Politics & Govt: In The News
, , ,
21

Hi

What would I do?

Firstly repeal UK Legislation that puts every thing we decide into the ECHR, no other Country in Europe does that, we are unique.

France and Germany can deport illegals in 6 weeks, we cannot do it in six years.

Secondly, scrap the current system of developing our own Computer Systems, which is very expensive and which is taking years.

We cannot reconcile who arrived, when they left, over stayers and criminals.

Even Poland has a much better system than that, they control everything.

Then, recognise that our stupid system does not work and instead of using Private Companies, bring it back in house.

This means that the people on the spot have the legal authority to say no, out you go.

A five year Appeal Process, all paid for by us, put them on the plane and they then claim they are Gay.

Never mentioned it before, so the contracted Private Companies take them off because they have to.

Fully authorised Legal Enforcement Officers have no such restrictions.

Sorry, you did not mention it before, off you go.

You can of course appeal again, but not in the UK.

She could start again joint operations at night and against specific targets.

When they are found and detained, keep them.

Patel has instructed they are released on Bail, so they disappear again.

The list is endless Rainmaker, you need to have worked in the system to know what is going on.

22

The two most important things that would cause your suggestions to fail, much as I agree with them, are Number one: The Human Rights Act which needs to be changed. It is weighted to much in favour of the Asylum Seekers. Number two: Getting an agreement with France which would be Honoured unlike the current one in which we are treated with contempt.

1 Like
23

Hi, this is an automated message from your friendly Over50sChat bot :039:

Please note this thread has been tagged with our strictly-on-topic-please tag - this means the poster of the thread would prefer that you stay on-topic when posting in this thread.

If you’d like to start a related discussion you can do so easily by clicking on the time-stamp in the top right of any post and then clicking on + New Thread - this will then let you post a new thread and place a link to each from the other, thus making them ‘linked threads’ :023:

Thank you for your understanding and for helping make the Over50sChat community the best it can be!

:orange_heart:

24

Wow we’ve been Botted :rofl:

1 Like
25

Just so long as it’s not a runny bot, I’m not bothered :wink::point_right::grin:

26

Hi, this is an automated message from your friendly Over50sChat bot :039:

Please note this thread has been tagged with our strictly-on-topic-please tag - this means the poster of the thread would prefer that you stay on-topic when posting in this thread.

If you’d like to start a related discussion you can do so easily by clicking on the time-stamp in the top right of any post and then clicking on + New Thread - this will then let you post a new thread and place a link to each from the other, thus making them ‘linked threads’ :023:

Thank you for your understanding and for helping make the Over50sChat community the best it can be!

:orange_heart:

27

Yeah, I read it the first time!

28

Hi

You are wrong on both counts.

First ,it was the UK which wrote the Human Rights Legislation, it is the stupid way we interpret it which is our own fault, nobody else interprets it like we do.

Secondly, it is not the responsibility of France to protect our Borders, it is ours, we are not doing it.

Our Border is in France at the moment, we are constantly slagging them off.

Easy Solution for the French.

Ok, forget it, here is your six months notice, the Border is being moved back to the UK and sod you.

We will let all UK bound vehicles through, not our problem, we will not check them.

You will have to check them on your soil and we will not let back into France.

They are perfectly legal in doing this.

That is International Law which we have signed up to.

29

My post was referring to the article posted in the Opening Post, which is the Thread Topic, isn’t it?

“High Court challenge to Boris Johnson’s Patel bullying denial”

1 Like
30

Then you must have clicked the reply button in the text box of my post, bottom right, which replies to the post without quoting it. its easily done

31

We may have drafted the original Human Rights Act but the EU have mauled it to death. As for The French, they should be stopping the migrants at their borders, before they come across France since they should apply in the first safe country they come to. I shall say no more since we are being Botted to stay on Topic

1 Like
32

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-17/johnson-applied-wrong-rules-in-patel-bullying-probe-union-says

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson didn’t follow the correct rules when investigating allegations of bullying made against his Home Secretary Priti Patel, trade union lawyers said.

Johnson “misinterpreted” the term bullying in the Ministerial Code, lawyers for the FDA union said at a London court hearing on Wednesday. The code sets out the standards of conduct expected of ministers. FDA represent professionals in public service.

A government spokesperson declined to comment on the proceedings.

The judges have not been asked to make any decisions on whether bullying took place, only whether Johnson misinterpreted or misapplied the code.

Let me think … misinterpreted or misapplied … :thinking:

33

The prime minister found that the home secretary had not breached a code that sets standards of behaviour for government ministers last November.

The FDA union, which represents senior public servants, has launched a legal challenge asking the High Court to “declare that the prime minister misinterpreted the term bullying in the ministerial code”.

Tom Hickman QC, representing the FDA, told a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice that it was a “misdirection of law” to suggest bullying has to be deliberate.

In written submissions to the court, he added: “Without any explanation, the defendant [Mr Johnson] departed from the civil service definition of bullying.”

Mr Hickman said the ministerial code did not “mean whatever he chooses it to mean, words have objective meaning”.

In the report on Ms Patel’s behaviour, published in November last year, Sir Alex Allan found she had not always treated civil servants with “consideration and respect”. He concluded: “Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.”

Mr Hickman said the FDA was concerned that the prime minister’s response had “significant implications” and could create a double standard where ministers are subject to more lenient rules.

He pointed to words added to a ministerial code foreword written by Theresa May in 2018, which said “exactly the same standards and norms” should govern Whitehall as any other workplace.

The barrister argued that civil servants would be “under-protected” if subjected to Mr Johnson’s interpretation that bullying must be done intentionally or an awareness of its harmful effects.

“The ministerial code would be substantially undermined as a policy document guiding the conduct of ministers, since its meaning would be no more and no less than the subjective opinion of the prime minister,” Mr Hickman said.

“The defendant’s view deviates from an essential,minimum, aspect of the protection afforded to civil servants under the government’s own policies.”

The court heard that some of the FDA’s members were directly involved in the investigation of the home secretary, and the former Home Office permanent secretary Sir Phillip Rutnam, whose resignation prompted the probe.

The union is not asking the court to “express any view” on whether she “committed the actions alleged against her” or “the sanctions, if any, that should follow from her actions”.

In written submissions, Sir James Eadie QC, for the prime minister, argued the FDA’s claim is “not justiciable”.

He said the ministerial code “does not create or impose any legal duties on ministers or the prime minister” and is “not required by law” and its contents “not regulated by law”.

Sir James added: “Rather, it is a political statement by the Prime Minister as to how he intends to operate his relationship with his ministers and the standards he will judge them by when considering whether they retain his confidence.”

He told the court that the code was a “political document” and “not about protecting the rights of civil servants”.

In written submissions, he said the code “does not expressly or implicitly incorporate any definition of bullying”, arguing that “subjective experience and objective intention are elements to be considered in relation to any bullying claim but there is no single correct approach to the weight that must be given to them in a given case”.

Sir James said Mr Johnson’s decision “was a matter of judgment for him having regard to the nature of the code, his functions under it, and all the circumstances of the case”.

He concluded: “His decision on the issue reveals no error of law.”

As ever, BJ wants it done his way, regardless of code, rules, protocol, procedure or precedent … indeed, any form of restriction or control … :man_shrugging:

34

The union for senior civil servants has lost its High Court challenge to Boris Johnson’s decision to back Priti Patel over claims she bullied staff.

The court said it had not been “misinterpreted”.

Despite losing its legal bid, the FDA said the judgement represented a “major victory”.

It welcomed the court’s ruling that decisions taken on the ministerial code - the rules that govern ministers’ behaviour - could be challenged in court.

General secretary Dave Penman said it was “an important step forward in the battle to ensure that ministers are held to account for their behaviour in the workplace”.

Ah, well … :man_shrugging:

35

If you think this is the last of it think again. It seems to be becoming a pattern of the Left and their Media allies to dig the dirt on Ministers or any Conservative, so bereft of policies and inspiration are they. Whether it be false accusation against the PM or whining and whinging on about last years Christmas party . You can be sure they will fid something else. Whatever else they find you can be sure it will not be policies that appeal to the electorate.