• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Priti good

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Priti good"

Collapse

  • AtW
    replied
    Taxpayers pick the bill because the Minister was bullying on their behalf, it’s not pretty but it’s Priti...
    ...

    Leave a comment:


  • mattster
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    The employer is on the hook regardless. Now if they had followed through and sacked Priti that would be acceptable unfortunately so few employers do. I suspect she will be reshuffled to the back benches.
    I wouldn't count on it - there hasn't been much sign of any kind of censure of Priti from the government. She should never have been in the position in the first place, after her last sacking as foreign secretary, but they have a only a small pool of Boris/Brexit loyalists to choose from, so she'll probably stay.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    The employer is on the hook regardless. Now if they had followed through and sacked Priti that would be acceptable unfortunately so few employers do. I suspect she will be reshuffled to the back benches.
    They could have tried to argue they are only partly liable as they weren't aware of her actions and she is solely liable for the rest of it. (This is why employers send people on unconscious bias, diversity and whatever courses.) However it wouldn't work as Ms Patel has previous form.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    The government must have decided that they are liable to pay for her actions instead of hanging her out to dry.
    The employer is on the hook regardless. Now if they had followed through and sacked Priti that would be acceptable unfortunately so few employers do. I suspect she will be reshuffled to the back benches.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
    Shouldn't Priti have to foot the bill though, why is it the taxpayer when its a case against her? She wouldnt settle for 350k or whatever it is , but it's easy when its "someone else's money" . She should have to pay a personal penalty, not the public purse on her behalf.

    My 2 cents obvs.
    The government must have decided that they are liable to pay for her actions instead of hanging her out to dry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scoobos
    replied
    Shouldn't Priti have to foot the bill though, why is it the taxpayer when its a case against her? She wouldnt settle for 350k or whatever it is , but it's easy when its "someone else's money" . She should have to pay a personal penalty, not the public purse on her behalf.

    My 2 cents obvs.

    Leave a comment:


  • mattster
    replied
    Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
    How is this not corruption?

    I'm not trying to be controversial or take the micky - but haven't a political party in power, just bought off a scandal with public funds, the day after a budget that says we have a deficit of historic levels?

    Is there another angle to be looking at this from?
    The other angle is that if this had gone to court, he would have got more - at least in the view of the legal team representing the Home Office. Hence the payout. There's a scandal here, but I don't think it is corruption - rather, it is the behaviour of the (almost) universally reviled Patel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scoobos
    replied
    How is this not corruption?

    I'm not trying to be controversial or take the micky - but haven't a political party in power, just bought off a scandal with public funds, the day after a budget that says we have a deficit of historic levels?

    Is there another angle to be looking at this from?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Does it cover his legal fees? Or are they separate?
    A QC for his lawyer ...

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Does it cover his legal fees? Or are they separate?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    340k...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by clearedforlanding View Post

    I'd have settled for sex.
    Maybe Priti & Philip Rutnam have higher standards?

    Leave a comment:


  • clearedforlanding
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    "Priti Patel reaches six-figure settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam

    Former permanent secretary sued government over alleged bullying by home secretary

    Priti Patel has reached a six-figure settlement with a senior civil servant following claims that he was forced out of his job for intervening in her alleged bullying of fellow staff, it has emerged.

    Sir Philip Rutnam, the former permanent secretary in the Home Office, had threatened to take the home secretary to an employment tribunal hearing in September.

    He also claimed he had been hounded out of his job for defending his staff, and was suing the government under whistleblowing laws."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-philip-rutnam

    999999 is a 6-figure sum...
    I'd have settled for sex.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    started a topic Priti good

    Priti good

    "Priti Patel reaches six-figure settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam

    Former permanent secretary sued government over alleged bullying by home secretary

    Priti Patel has reached a six-figure settlement with a senior civil servant following claims that he was forced out of his job for intervening in her alleged bullying of fellow staff, it has emerged.

    Sir Philip Rutnam, the former permanent secretary in the Home Office, had threatened to take the home secretary to an employment tribunal hearing in September.

    He also claimed he had been hounded out of his job for defending his staff, and was suing the government under whistleblowing laws."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-philip-rutnam

    999999 is a 6-figure sum...

Working...
X