Williamson

Malced said:
I've at no time said a formal complaint should be ignored. I've said the texts he wrote were unpleasant. I wouldn't have written texts like that but they're not what I would consider a sacking offence. We will see what the outcome of the complaint is. I can only give my opinion on the severity and appropriate punishment. I didn't suggest anything should be swept under the carpet. That's your own fabrication. I've said its not something he should lose his job over and it's not worthy of the huge amount of media air time it's getting.

The latter reported comments if true are sackable offences in my opinion.

By the way, when i was a manager i would deal with all complaints equally. Regardless of gender. I'm not sure what your point is about gender unless you're inferring its worse for a man to write such messages to a woman as opposed to vice versa. I think you're showing your unconscious out-dated gender bias.
Click to expand...
You don't think that being found guilty of bullying and harrasment should be a sackable offence?
 
Walthamstow_Seasider said:
You don't think that being found guilty of bullying and harrasment should be a sackable offence?
Click to expand...

As you know, a complaint has been made regarding the messages. From what I’ve seen of the messages they don’t warrant sacking.

But it’s for others to decide. There’s various words banded around iro the messages. These include vile, abusive, bullying, harassing etc etc.

Someone needs to carefully consider the messages and make a judgement on their severity and the appropriate consequence for GW. It’s not automatic that someone merits losing their post. The intention and severity and amount of messages all needs considering when deciding whether something is bullying and/or harassment.

Harassment for example is not a one off action. There usually has to be a pattern of behaviour or behaviour repeated over a period of time. Do these messages fall under the definition of bullying and harassment? Well like I say, it’s for others to decide. And then they need to decide on the outcome of the investigation.

Does a chief whipp really feel bullied and can they say with credence they were bullied over a few messages from an MP? That sounds a bit unlikely to me. So the individuals and their roles will need to be considered. And the context. The politicians that investigate the complaint will be well placed to assess all that, and assess what politics if any, are playing into this complaint.

It’s a Sunak supporter having a complaint made about them by a Truss supporter. That might well have some relevance.
 
Malced said:
As you know, a complaint has been made regarding the messages. From what I’ve seen of the messages they don’t warrant sacking.

But it’s for others to decide. There’s various words banded around iro the messages. These include vile, abusive, bullying, harassing etc etc.

Someone needs to carefully consider the messages and make a judgement on their severity and the appropriate consequence for GW. It’s not automatic that someone merits losing their post. The intention and severity and amount of messages all needs considering when deciding whether something is bullying and/or harassment.

Harassment for example is not a one off action. There usually has to be a pattern of behaviour or behaviour repeated over a period of time. Do these messages fall under the definition of bullying and harassment? Well like I say, it’s for others to decide. And then they need to decide on the outcome of the investigation.

Does a chief whipp really feel bullied and can they say with credence they were bullied over a few messages from an MP? That sounds a bit unlikely to me. So the individuals and their roles will need to be considered. And the context. The politicians that investigate the complaint will be well placed to assess all that, and assess what politics if any, are playing into this complaint.

It’s a Sunak supporter having a complaint made about them by a Truss supporter.
Click to expand...
It all falls under the Ministerial Code of Practice that means abusive messages are deemed unacceptable.

Your perception of abusive probably doesn't fit the model that thecredt of society abides by. Call it woke LWNJ or whatever, but dinosaur thinking and behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.

No one goes to work expecting to be harassed and bullied, and those in positions of power have to be seen to be above such behaviour.

A low bar was set by Johnson and him ignoring the accusations against Priti Patel.
 
I worked with somebody quite recently who had worked under Williamson a few years ago, before he was an MP.
This guy isn't a liar or prone to exaggeration. He said Williamson was a the nastiest and most arrogant bully
he had ever had the misfortune to work for. His exact words
And he told me that a long time before these accusations were known.
 
Wizaard said:
It all falls under the Ministerial Code of Practice that means abusive messages are deemed unacceptable.

Your perception of abusive probably doesn't fit the model that thecredt of society abides by. Call it woke LWNJ or whatever, but dinosaur thinking and behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.

No one goes to work expecting to be harassed and bullied, and those in positions of power have to be seen to be above such behaviour.

A low bar was set by Johnson and him ignoring the accusations against Priti Patel.
Click to expand...

Well let's see. The investigation won't just look at texts and conclude he is to be sacked. They will look at all the things I've referred to and decide what's appropriate. Their previous relationship may also be relevant. He blew his top for a reason. They will see the context. For all we know she may have been bullying him by freezing him out etc. We've no idea. This isn't someone wielding power over someone else and being abusive.
If anything, she had power over him. So It's not as simple and clear cut as some may suggest.
 
Malced said:
Well let's see. The investigation won't just look at texts and conclude he is to be sacked. They will look at all the things I've referred to and decide what's appropriate. Their previous relationship may also be relevant. He blew his top for a reason. They will see the context. For all we know she may have been bullying him by freezing him out etc. We've no idea. This isn't someone wielding power over someone else and being abusive.
If anything, she had power over him. So It's not as simple and clear cut as some may suggest.
Click to expand...
Whichever way you look at it, it's childish, self entitled strops over not getting an invite to the funeral.
 
in Scotland, the vast majority of the vote goes to Labour and the SNP, both centre left parties. The Tories struggle to get over 20% and are currently in the teens. Most people here are baffled as to why ordinary people in England are so prone to give the Tories the benefit of every doubt and turn away from Labour if they as much as look at them the wrong way. While no party is perfect, if you look at all the major issues over the years Labour has done far more in practical terms than the tories. It seems to me they successfully divert people by dividing them, while looking after their own. The idea that deprived areas of Blackpool vote Tory just seems bizarre. And that applies to the North East etc etc
 
The bullying in itself is bad enough but the fact that he was considered a threat to national security yet still reappointed to a ministerial position just beggars belief yet is getting very little press.
 
Killieboy said:
in Scotland, the vast majority of the vote goes to Labour and the SNP, both centre left parties. The Tories struggle to get over 20% and are currently in the teens. Most people here are baffled as to why ordinary people in England are so prone to give the Tories the benefit of every doubt and turn away from Labour if they as much as look at them the wrong way. While no party is perfect, if you look at all the major issues over the years Labour has done far more in practical terms than the tories. It seems to me they successfully divert people by dividing them, while looking after their own. The idea that deprived areas of Blackpool vote Tory just seems bizarre. And that applies to the North East etc etc
Click to expand...
I remember way back when Harold Wilson I think lost the election, a newsreader reporting on it said something along the lines of he had done much to improve the lives of the working people but now they’d moved up a notch they thought they were too good to vote labour and had deserted the party.
 
traffordtang said:
I remember way back when Harold Wilson I think lost the election, a newsreader reporting on it said something along the lines of he had done much to improve the lives of the working people but now they’d moved up a notch they thought they were too good to vote labour and had deserted the party.
Click to expand...
So true. They think their improved lives are all down to themselve. It takes a village and all that jazz…….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top