Factsnotbelief
65p274 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0
8 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Patel - "I am s... · 6 replies · +1 points
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
"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
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
Pritel was found to have broken the ministerial code - again.
10 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Johnson in the ... · 0 replies · +1 points
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
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
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
17 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: "We must now ta... · 3 replies · +1 points
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
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.