Dominic Raab-B'stard

Just watched this mon being interviewed on the Marr program and in't he a Tory

He wants to cut the basic rate of Income Tax to 15% but won't say which public services would be cut to pay for it

whupsy

Did yoo ever watch 'The New Statesman'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcP63WE-v9M

I put this topic on in May 2019 as it was being said that Dominic Raab was the nearest MP in Westminster, to the fictional Alan B'stard MP, from the 1980s.

Sure enough the B'stard has been sacked for bullying LINK

He was not sacked, he resigned as he said he would if anything was found against him.

I think this kafkaesque inquiry is very frightening for the country, having read the report, seen that the complaints were years old when in law a person has to bring a complaint of bullying within 3 months, it is obvious this is a witch hunt.

Who are the next ministers the Civil Serpents going to attack?

all of em .

Platty

But he is a bit of a b'stard.

I just thought i would bring this up ,, When these Toe-rag's resign /get sacked or what ever it's nowt like us commoner's is it ? When we commit a misdemeanor or something akin to that we have to sign on the dole and usually get sweet F..A . Yet these lot all they seem to do is say "OK we will go and sit on the back benche's on a piddly £87 Thousand's A year so they really can't lose can they ??? Wether he has resigned or not he should get himself/herself down to Job-centre . It happen's to all the bloody lot of them Tory's/Lab/Lib's / Green's etc ,etc it all stinks to high heaven As i say if it's us we are clobbered ! So i will not lose any sleep over these sorts They are ALL ROTTEN TO THE CORE !!!!G.B.

Wasnt he involved in a similar case back in the day when he worked for David Davis the tory M P..?
It was settled with a pay off and a non disclosure agreement allegedly .
Same sh.t .
Diiferent day.
Good riddance to the slimeball .

I think he would make a good Prime Minister

maybe , in rwanda .

Saddam Hussein reincarnated.

It's a reluctant resignation , he would have been sacked he chose to resign blaming everyone else just like Boris no apologies for his nasty way he treated people

Well what do you expect from a B'stard.

I believe it is well recognised that bullying is one of the least effective ways of managing people.

You can see this starkly revealed in the failings of Vladimir Putin, compared with the inspirational leadership, some say, Churchillian, adopted by Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Don't they always look after their own ?...They all shoot themselves in the foot sooner or later...they are dodgy on all parties..we the sheep do nowt about it.

unless we dont use our right to vote ? .

I thought those that fought in the World Wars fought to give us the right to freedom. In my book that means the freedom to decide who we vote for but also the freedom to decide if we want to vote or not. If you don’t think any of the candidates are worth voting for then you use that freedom and abstain.

People should vote, but the ballot paper should have a block with the word "Abstained"

At least that would show who want to vote, but are not happy with any of the candidates compared to those who could not care less about anything and never vote!

What benefit would that be Todge?

The parties concerned choose the candidates', are you saying the council should be doing it instead?

OC another pointless post its easy to spoil your paper as it stands , as for Dominic Raab just another horrible arrogant tory t*rd

Dominic raab .
Now complaining to anybody who will listen,
Saying how badly he as
Been treated by civil servants what a creep..bullyboy can't take his own medicine

I’m no fan, but Raab has been hard done by
Labelling the justice secretary a bully is no substitute for finding evidence that any of his actions merited his departure
Matthew Parris
Friday April 21 2023, 9.00pm, The Times
Share
Save

This columnist is in a quandary. I do not like much of what I’ve heard about Dominic Raab. I do not warm to the individual whose character emerges with both definition and colour from Adam Tolley KC’s report, released yesterday.
Raab’s political direction has often been little short of repugnant to me. His role as one of the fiercest Brexit warriors strikes me as ever more ill-considered in light of what we now know about the failure of Brexit. His time as justice secretary was (to me) a disappointment, far removed from the reforming instincts of his predecessors like Robert Buckland, David Gauke and Michael Gove. And such stories as Tolley’s irritatingly unspecific report does disclose paint for me the picture of a minister I would not wish to work for or with — and, were I a junior civil servant, a political boss who would make me nervous.
And furthermore . . . well, you get the picture. Only last year, speaking at The Times Law Awards dinner (which it had been the custom of justice secretaries to attend, but Raab did not) your columnist compared the pantheon of previous ministers in that job (culminating in Raab) with that famous cartoon series of the Ascent of Man, from ape to homo sapiens, but in reverse. He will not think me a fan.
Nor am I. I’ve been sneakily looking forward to what I supposed might be Tolley’s harpooning of a figure that Tory politics would do well to be rid of. I knew Tolley would be fair and rigorous, and I half-assumed his report would be devastating.
But it isn’t. It really isn’t. In fact reading it one feels a growing sympathy for an intelligent, forceful, sometimes aggressive individual for whom empathy is another planet and who’s obviously somewhere on some kind of a spectrum, trying to get things done while fighting the fog that no politician who has ever worked with the Whitehall machine would deny so often descends.
So, all right, I’ll say it. On the basis of this report I just cannot see why Raab had to go.
Do read it: only 47 pages, the first 20 or more being spent in the doubtless necessary exercise of defining terms, quoting the sources of wisdom and authority in and around the ministerial code, and explaining why Tolley cannot name names and therefore why — I think disappointingly — his description of actual alleged episodes is so thin. You can canter quickly through the first half, which often feels like throat-clearing; but as you read, it dawns on you that Tolley is preparing to deliver a judgment formed on the basis of facts known to him, but which he isn’t going to share. In that sense this document is more an act of adjudication than (in the journalist’s sense) a report.
He prepares us early, however, for what is the broad thrust of his judgment when he quotes Dame Sue Owen’s 2018 recommendations in her report on “bullying, harassment and misconduct” in the civil service. She distinguishes (says Tolley) between “‘abusive’ behaviours, ie ones that are intended and specifically targeted, and ‘abrasive’ behaviours, ie personal styles, which feel like bullying (or other misconduct) to the individual, but are not intended to be so and where the perpetrator may often be unaware of the impact”. Both, however, come under her definition of “bullying”.
olley does not find that Raab was abusive and acquits him altogether of harassment or of targeting individuals. He does, however, often find that the deputy prime minister could be “abrasive” in his style, and that civil servants sometimes felt intimidated. He doesn’t conclude that the DPM intended this, but sometimes concludes that he ought to have considered it. Tolley returns often to the abusive/abrasive distinction, and it’s fair to say that with Raab he comes down pretty firmly on the side of “abrasive, not abusive”.
Taken in summary, this reads to me more like a report which a prime minister could reasonably use as the basis for reprieving a minister than for sentence of execution. Except for this. Raab has insisted from the start that if he was indicted by Tolley for bullying, he would resign. He was and he did. Rishi Sunak quickly accepted the resignation, and I
sense the prime minister has been keen to draw a line under this damaging story rather than prolong it.
But in this Raab-phobe’s mind at least, a nagging sense of injustice to the former justice secretary persists. I have to observe that most readers, as well as journalists on a good few newspapers, will read Tolley and mutter, “Isn’t he just describing the average work floor — in the private sector at least?”
In my BBC radio Great Lives series it’s striking but perhaps not surprising how many great men and women — innovators, warriors, leaders, explorers, disruptors, creative geniuses — had a bullying streak in the “abrasive” (not abusive) sense. Whom might we have lost, under a rule that no behaviour which made a junior colleague feel uncomfortable or insecure could ever be tolerated?
We are moving into an era, I think, which itches to put people into boxes and attach a label, relieving us of the need to weigh up individual judgments on particular circumstances. He’s a homophobe. She’s a racist. You’re a “hostile actor” (as I was informed in a radio debate on trans issues). He’s a terf. She’s a climate-change denier. He’s a paedo, why hasn’t Rishi put him in jail? She’s a hate-speaker. He’s an Islamophobe.
There’s something of Salem Massachusetts about it: never mind arguing about what she has or hasn’t actually done, throw her in the river and see if she floats because witches do.
It’s as though we identify and condemn a habit rather than an action. But the law doesn’t (or didn’t used to) decide whether someone was a thief: it decided whether they had stolen something.
Yet today you can be sent to prison for “controlling and coercive behaviour” without the jury even needing to agree on which of the individual alleged instances of such behaviour took place: it is enough, according to a 2021 Court of Appeal decision (in the case of Peter Chilvers) for each juror to take his or her own path, through a slew of allegations, to the overall conclusion that that is the kind of person you are. Not what you did. What you are.
So Dominic Raab’s “a bully” and must resign. I prefer to look at what he did, and ask myself whether any among a hailstorm of allegations amounts to a breach of his ministerial obligations. I cannot find that hailstone.

yea right .

Bullying in any shape or form is unacceptable. See 09.49.

With all this about 'bullying' how come that Gordon Ramsay is still in a job

GB would have a problem today with the bar being set so low.

GB

I seem to remember that GB had a problem even without qualifying it in this manner.

Is bullying by Tory Politician Dominic Raab any worse than the racist comments by Labour Politician Dianne Abbot about the Jewish People.

Both parties as bad as each other where nastiness in politic's is concerned

Tts! RAMSAY is the boss he can do what he likes so if you Don,t like his way then leave

Bentlegs

If you are talking about Gordon Ramsey, then the word "leave" does not come into it, in his case it would be an operative statement, which would be "Eff Off"

Because he has got a potty mouth

the torys certainly have the monopoly when it comes to bullying MPs dont they . raab , braveman , patel , williamson , khan & lucy alen to name but a few ? .

More pointless waffle OC