Whether he referred her to Party or Parliamentary complaints will be down to the information she gave him, but either way, it is within the Ken of all MPs and staff within Parliament that it is solely down to the individual involved to instigate a complaint, and that will be spelled out in the rules and regulations. The only flaw, the only breach of regulations if you like, in the context she described is that she did not follow the complaints procedure herself, but rather, unfortunately, went directly to the PM, who is prohibited from acting on her behalf, because it would be hideously inappropriate for him to do so without the person she accuses having had the chance to defend themselves. The advice Boris gave her should be known to every MP, and there is no reason why they should ever have to put themselves in a position where they have to be reminded. Believe me, Boris would be far more open to criticism from all parties, me included, if he had taken her at her word and acted against those she claims are involved. The facts must be established and a judgement made before any executive action can be taken, and Boris may only take either executive action or advise, as he did advise. There seems to be a lack of understanding regarding basic industrial relations on here, and it is stunning.
I want to reflect the diversity of the hall (so put your hand down Mr Whitey), was virtually a mantra at the conference, the chap who explained that his father was white only set up the approach for the conference, and it was reiterated repeatedly throughout. Just to show how F-img stupid the whole thing is, it didn’t even occur to me that the guy considered himself to be defined by a colour. In fact I don’t believe it is a distinguishment he made. Utterly ridiculous that people insist on these pathetic racial definitions of themselves and others as a characteristic. It is no wonder that racism is redefining itself in this modern age. Anyway, so long as Labour ignore it is happening, it will remain a problem, particularly if it is ignored deliberately.
ITV reporting that Bodger had a Birthday Bash in No10. Lulu* was present, plus about 25 others. No 10 claiming it was all work colleagues. *Lulu Lytle, not Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllll Lulu.
The idea that Carrie and Bunter would ever celebrate each other’s birthdays in quiet observation of their public duties was always a bit fanciful, wasn’t it folks? He’s never in his life not been the centre of attention. He’s set out to hold court and reward his courtiers and that’s what he’s done. Corrupt, corrupt and dead man walking.
On twitter: "So, let me get this straight. They brought back the wallpaper lady from the first scandal to star in this one? Are you ******* kidding me?"
This is interesting and I didn’t know that it’s actually prohibited for him to act. But when you say ‘act’ do you mean that he couldn’t have made any judgments on the accusation or do you mean he couldn’t refer on her behalf? Or both?
Geesis H Constable!! Lulu's implicated now. Is no one innocent? My god. Sod the anti-Semitism, WW3, and all that, this one's a real doozy.
Check out any organisation's rules, required by legislation, on the handling of staff/member's complaints, and there will be a set of instructions, a procedure, that ensures a complainant and the person they accuse are dealt with fairly and equally. It must be followed, and be seen to be followed, before anyone can consider an individual guilty of any breech. That does not mean there cannot be a suspicion, but a person cannot be considered guilty, or treated as guilty, until the procedure has been followed, a judgement made on the evidence presented, and the individual informed of the judgement and any sanctions made against them. Judgements will be made based on the organisations (legally required) rules of respect for colleagues, which would include matters of prejudice. 1 Boris did refer her to the procedure. She said that much in her statement. That is what he will be required to do by both Party and Parliamentary rules, because their will be designated people to do designated jobs in a particular stated way. This is so the Party or Parliament cannot be accused of bias by either party involved, or by any person who is not permitted proper access to the procedure. 2 Boris had to refer (and not act), because the procedure would require no senior member of the Party or Parliament to take executive action UNTIL so instructed. It may be that Boris is the person who would be required to take or decide executive action (as leader of the Party, but not as an employee of Parliament), but he may not do so until informed by the procedure that a judgement has been made. To act on her behalf, offering unwarranted weight to her words before any others have been heard, would be a breach of Party or Parliamentary rules on fairness. 3 Boris is not permitted, in real terms, to make the judgement, unless he is a person permitted to do so by the procedure (unlikely as he is either the Party leader or just another Parliamentary employee). 4 He is required to abide by the judgement of the procedure. He may openly agree with the outcome of the procedure, he may even make up his mind before it is made, but he may not state the belief that a party is guilty until the findings of the procedure indicate it is so. That is because the procedure, like the courts in the wider world, will be the only body that is familiar with all the facts and all the evidence, and its conclusions will become the official opinion of the Party/Parliament. If he were to openly disagree with the outcome, he may be sanctioned for disrespecting the individual or the Party/Parliament. Privately, he may have and share whatever opinion he wishes, but must run the risk of it becoming an issue when the press find out. 4 In all cases, a person must decide for themselves whether to make a complaint, and act on their own behalf. In doing so, they may employ the specialised knowledge of a union rep, solicitor or a friend, at the discretion of the organisation, who they can justify becoming involved in internal Party/Parliamentary business. This would not include executive collegues, who would be considered inapropriate due to the possibility of their influencing an outcome, or the possiblity of them becoming involved in the procedure at a later stage, such as appeal, sanctioning or notification. It is also important that a persons complaint is not seen to be made under duress or coercion. 5 It would be inappropriate for Boris to be involved in making her complaint, because it would certainly be seen as the leader favouring her case, which would would be a massive handicap for the complainants case, almost certainly, should the person they accused wish, it would be a very good argument for the case to be thrown out (imagine one of your colleagues accused you of something, and your boss made the complaint on their behalf!). That is why I consider it a detrement to her cause that she not only approached him, but appears to have insisted that he deal with it in an executive manner, and did not accept his most proper referal to official procedure, which would have led to executive decision if it were appropriate. As a union rep, I have been involved in cases where this requirement and use of rules came up. The rules of each organisation are different according to their structure and proclivities, but they must provide fair, equal and consistant treatment to those involved, or an organisation will find itself constantly losing tribunals and court cases on the technicality that its rules are not fit for purpose, or because they do not follow their own rules.
I strongly believe that the first act of the inquiry will be to hold the official complaint procedure, or a precise mirror of it, before it decides what manner of inquiry is required. If it turns out she was taking seriously a snide comment from a civil servant, rather than actually being told by an involved official, that her religion was taken into account, then the inquiry will not be into the behaviour of the Government, but the civil service or whatever individuals were involved, and it may, as Sidney mentioned, be a very different inquiry to that envisaged by those wishing to bash Boris. If it was the job of the chief whip to inform her of the reasons for her rejection, then it is entirely natural that he assumed she was accusing him of the breech, as, according to her words, he would have been the only person that could have done so, as anyone who applied for a ministerial job would know (imagine you are the sole dinner lady at an office, and a member of staff said 'someone' had sold them hake as cod in the canteen at lunch time, when you knew it was definitely cod). However, if she was taking seriously a piece of hearsay from a civil servant or other person (who may have expressed their own suspicion as fact), and treatied it with the same weight as an official communication (thus imply it was a comment from the Whip), then it becomes even more incredible that she expected the Prime Minister to deal with a matter of tittle tattle. If it turns out she was discriminated against because of her religion, though, then it is equally important that the matter is dealt with properly, and a shame that she apparently chose not to do so.
It was only after people started High fiving and congratulating themselves as if they had won the FA Cup that it occurred to me that they thought observing someones birthday at a work meeting breeched COVID regulations.
Just heard this, The Political Butterfly Effect, on BBC R4 and how it could have been very, very different. Well worth 15 min of your time.
I'm starting to wonder whether it would be quicker for the police and the enquiry to investigate when there wasn't a party at 10 Downing Street.
He could have just said "what if?" Basing your political commentary on the film Sliding Doors may be entertaining, but really rather pointless. Khaos 'Theory' combined with alternative universes is the stuff of fevered romantic fantasy. Understanding and accepting that not everything goes as planned is part of coping with life. You can say things would be different, but you cannot guarantee it will be better or worse, just because it did or didn't turn out the way you had invested your emotions and faith relying upon.
Showing.once again, that I'm Dr Zeitgeist I've always associated that song with the brilliant Alfie Moore. EDIT: He's done a covid special.
Until Lord Agnew's marvellous flounce yesterday I was beginning to think all these revelations about Boris's various 'parties' were a clever diversion to draw peoples' attention from the news that the Government has given God-knows how many millions or billions of pounds of taxpayers' money away to help companies that never existed through the pandemic.
Yes, there hasn’t been that much attention on the mere £4bn of fraud estimated by the NAO. No doubt if Sunak gets the job it can be raised and he can walk out in a huff like he usually does. The liberal commentators seem to fear Sunak, but I would love it if he became Tory leader. The difference between being responsible for simply giving money away with no strings and being responsible for everything is going to hit him for six.
If I were cynical I would suspect that the Met's timing here is helpful for Johnson. Assuming the Gray report is damning then his best hope is delaying it until something bigger happens like Russia invading Ukraine. I'm sure he's not hoping the invasion happens but I wouldn't be surprised if the report is hurriedly released should it happen.
It really is extraordinary how little coverage this has been given. Even the small matter of Putin starting WWIII takes a back seat to allow all channels to focus on Boris's birthday tea party
Julia Hartley Brewer displaying the Right’s new Covid revisionism. The Tories ignored the rules because they knew they weren’t life and death. They are annoyed for being duped, not because rules they didn’t respect weren’t observed, but for putting in rules.
I get that, but I think the media coverage of the shenanigans at No10 has been so relentless there's a danger that the wrongness of the behaviour and, worse still, the bu11sh1t they come out with in an attempt to wriggle off the hook loses impact - if you see what I mean
Yes. It appears that is that. It’s reported that any wobblers who were waiting for the report to be published before submitting a letter are ‘tired’ and are shrugging their shoulders about the latest news. Looks like he’s kicked the can down the road far enough to head off any real rebellion. Starmer looked like he knew in the Commons today. Rayner’s comments were delivered with less than her usual flair. Johnson with a skip in his step. Police investigation could take months and months. I guess this is where having a friend or two in the Met has been very helpful.
If the standard for a party is singing happy Birthday and eating some cake, when everyone is in the office anyway, I guess you are right. Perhaps we should be looking for every mention of the words "well done", to establish that some crazed rave, in celebration of a job done well, was in in progress with naked tory workers writhing in communal vats of mud.
I made no suggestion that executive action should have been taken purely on the strength of her complaint to Boris. Regarding the issue of 'industrial relations', I am still uncertain how the Conservative Party's internal complaints procedure would be viewed as appropriate in the context of that body not being her employer.
True, but there’s really no other way. Johnson will admit nothing so it’s either forget it or bang on about it. The idea that you need an inquiry to establish what parties you attended and if you recognised it was a party is pure farce. The whole point of such obdurate behaviour is to frustrate. Small beer perhaps, but this is the person who may in days be trusted to send our youngsters to war. And he’s dishonest.
MPs are not employees. They hold public office and receive an allowance, as defined by Lloyd George when MPs received money for the first time in 1911. As he put it: "it was not a remuneration, it is not a recompense, it is not even a salary. It is just an allowance to enable us to open the door to great and honourable public service." "Industrial relations" has no relevance here whatsoever.
So the Met Police have no objections to Gray's report being published. Yet the Cabinet Office insists it has to be delayed until after the Police investigation. I think we all know why.
Johnson saying he is ‘pleased’ the Met are investigating, which shows the level of shytehousery. How can it be a good thing that the highest office in the land has, by its behaviour, provoked the Police (reluctant so far) to investigate? Perhaps he and Cressida have had a few words.
