Factsnotbelief

Factsnotbelief

65p

274 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

8 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Patel - "I am s... · 6 replies · +1 points

David

It is hard to define as such,but I think this covers it.

It is an exertion of power :

"Unnecessary, offensive, humiliating behaviour towards an individual or groups of employees.

Persistent, negative malicious attacks on personal or professional performance, often unpredictable and unfair or irrational.

An abuse of power or position that can cause anxiety and distress, or physical ill health."

8 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Patel - "I am s... · 0 replies · +1 points

Is there a reason for you to avoid the conclusion ?

"To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally."

" Shouting and swearing " is not OK in my book and is much closer to being abusive than "causing discomfort."

I have experienced workplace bullying of this type,and guess you have not.

8 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Patel - "I am s... · 5 replies · +1 points

We have not seen the full report

But in your link Sir Alex Allans states

"
“My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. 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."

In what world can these words not be construed as Patel broke the ministerial code ,unintentionally or otherwise ?

8 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Patel - "I am s... · 0 replies · +1 points

Once again Johnson values loyalty over principle.

Pritel was found to have broken the ministerial code - again.

10 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Johnson in the ... · 0 replies · +1 points

At the time Starmer passed the 11plus ,Reigate was not an independent fee paying school.

When Reigate converted to independent in 1976 it was required to maintain fee free education for existing 11 plus entrants such as Starmer.

Reigate had a similar statust to my old direct grant school,which also converted in 1976.

15 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Raab - "Let’s... · 1 reply · +1 points

But you stated "The UK government has not been found to have breached any agreement relating to the internal markets bill. "

As you correctly say ,jurisdiction for breach of international law does not sit with the UK supreme court.

The IMB explicitly denies the right to challenge under UK law ( although I have seen legal opinions that this might be open to challenge )

The default position is that the UK is intending ( sadly) to breach international treaty law until or unless proven otherwise in the relevant international court

15 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Raab - "Let’s... · 3 replies · +1 points

In Miller (1) the Supreme Court was clear that International treaties were binding on the UK under international law.Here is Joshua Rozenberg citing the relevant section of the ruling
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/mixed-millers-fr...

The PM tweeted Jan 24th that he had signed the WA,thereby honouring the democratic mandate of the people.There does not appear to be any gun to his head and he is clearly happy with the document he has signed.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/122075942...

16 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Andrew Gimson's PMQs s... · 1 reply · +1 points

"Impertinent' is correct .Pillar 2 is wholly run by commercial partners ( see the Government's Testing Programme policy paper 6th April) ,led be Deloittes but then outsourced further.Pillar 2 tests are badged NHS but this is a sleight of hand - maybe used to instil confidence.

17 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: "We must now ta... · 3 replies · +1 points

It is interesting to note that the founder of this site Tim Montgomerie is corruscating in his criticism of the Government position.

It seems from comments here that the only possible explanation is that he was a secret remainer

That is of course nonsense but points to the reality that the Act can be deeply troubling to leavers and remainers alike.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/130559783045585...

18 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - "Difficult and highly ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Incorrect -and I have read your link and there is nothing there which is inconsistent with his views to which I linked.

The WA is an agreement under international law and lodged as such with the UN

No act of parliament can unilaterally change the text of an international agreement .All it can do is amend the translation of that agreement into domestic law,but in doing so the Government leaves itself open to challenge in the arena of international law.

This is normally not an issue as Governments do not usually seek to pass domestic legislation which contradicts their international agreements.

It is Professor Eliliott's view that the AG fundamentally misunderstands this duality.