Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
22 February 2010
18:2341181#1
Politically motivated expose or genuine cause for concern?.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
22 February 2010
18:5741184#2
Well John there is a heck of a row going on over this as you will know. Tonight though the charity which upgraded the story from tittle tattle into real concern..are tonight disintegrating and heamoraghing patrons.The only patron left now is Conservative MP and well known TV face..Ann Widdicombe. I think that might tell us something.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
22 February 2010
19:5241186#3
PaulB - John..... lets face some facts.
Gordon Brown's behaviour has given rise for concern ever since he was in the Treasury.
I commented well over a year ago on this forum about what has been said about Brown.
Just recently we have seen revelations from two former Labour Party insiders about this kind of thing and former Civil Servants have also said the same.
What is so different now is the source, Rawnsley, he is a journalist, one of the very few, who has never been tainted by political bias. If anything he is 'of the left'. He is well respected and has impecible contacts. He is viewed much more seriously even than the Labour insiders because of the tensions and splits within the Labour Government.
Interestingly he provided no10 with a preview of his book in order to maintain his political integrity. As a result of that someone, from no 10, started leaking some extracts from the book several weeks ago. That was to reduce the impact and to rehearse spin lines. Incidentally, they also released inaccurate details about the book, the claim Brown hit someone was actually made up and does not appear in the book. That is an old spin trick in an attempt to devalue the actual release. Hence the statement by Brown saying he never hit anyone, denying something not in the book.....
We see this evening no10 releasing a form of words from spokesmen in an attempt to attempt to deny o'Donnell gave Brown a dressing down. What is interesting is that it came two days after the story was released. If accurate there would have been nothing stopping an immediate denial from o'Donnell himself yesterday or Saturday evening, or even this morning come to that. The time taken for that to be release is in itself instructive and will not discredit that claim.
Then we see a frankly outragous statement from that master of lies Mandelson claiming collusion between the Conservative Party and the charity.
This certainly is not politically motivated. Some revelations from Labour insiders and Civil Servants may be motivated by hatred of Brown, possibly with good reason. Rawnsley though is another matter, his integrity as a journalist is at stake here and his career. Having established his excellent reputation over many years he would not throw it away for one sensationalist book.... He says he has impecible sources and he is to be believed.
22 February 2010
20:1541187#4
Widdicombe has resigned.
British industry consistently fails to deal with workplace bullying, aided and abetted by HR professionals more keen to impress bosses than stand up for the employees.
Industrial tribunals refuse to recognise bullying as something deserving of a hearing.
Sort of sets the scene and may explain what appears to be unacceptable behaviour by Gordie. Only it isn't unacceptable to those in power, anywhere.
The seeds of bullying go back to Victoiran times and we as a nation have singly failed to deal with it, either in school, at work, or socially.
As for Rawnsley, yep a good reputation but still a journo so I will always be sceptical about what is reported or written.
22 February 2010
21:0341195#5
He is the Prime Minister FFS, and I expect he has plenty of eejits to deal with. If he throws a few paperweights about good luck to him. Losing your temper and expressing it are NOT bullying - bullying is deliberate intentional intimidation. Different. This gribble about bullying is a red herring and a green banana, smoke and mirrors, and a sad and pathetic attempt by The Blues to harness a fashionable - dare I say PC - phrase.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
22 February 2010
22:5541210#6
Bern - the issue is not one raised by 'the blues' it has been raised by Labour insiders, ex civil servants and a reputable journalist.
The question really is this acceptable behavior in a PM?
Mrs T was well known for having a go at Cabinet members but always, absolutely always, treated junior staff at no10 with the utmost courtesy. With Brown its is the other way around and is the sign of an insecure and weak man taking out his rage on those who cant defend themselves. His behavior is inexcusable for anyone in a position of authority.
Look at what else is known about Brown and we see a very disturbed man indeed, totally unsuited for any position of power and public office. Even Labour people have made some very disparaging remarks about him.
One story I remember that was revealed recently and corroborated, was the dinner party at no 10. He was interrupted while showing his guests where to sit by an urgent phone call. Left to their own devices for a while his guests decided to seat themselves. When Brown came in and found them seated he spent the entire meal sulking like a spoilt child, not saying anything to anybody. Immediately after it was over he went off straight to bed leaving his guests without saying good night let alone seeing them out.
Add to that his tendency to lie even when everyone knows he is deliberately lying (the election that never was, the 10p tax issue being just two examples). What about his delusions of banning boom and bust, of saving the world, these are not the claims of a sane man. Then there is his now well reported temper and bullying, just what do we have as Prime Minister?
Guido dubbed him the Prime Mentalist years ago because of his odd behavior. That really does sum this man up.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
22 February 2010
23:1041211#7
I do not think this is all true just away again to try and get Mr Brown out of number 10,this not the way to have a fair Election.I must say I will have nothing to do with it.I will fight the Election, and when the time comes will give as good as I take or even do better but it will be by fair means.
I feel yet again the main partys will not get the public on their side if they keep this up.which is good for me and UKIP it will get us more votes.
22 February 2010
23:1541212#8
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
23 February 2010
11:1941222#9
I have to say that I agree with Barry, this is unacceptable behaviour. Especially from one in so senior a position; Bern, I have to take issue with your definition of bullying in as much as I think your "bullying is deliberate intentional intimidation" doesn't cover all aspects of it. Bullying is also use of a more senior level to intimidate subordinates; bad managers frequently use the threat of losing ones job to get their own way, and that's just as much a manifestation of bullying as any, worse in many ways than throwing a paperweight around.
Gordon Brown is clearly a man under an immense amount of pressure, worried about his position within his own party and about an imminent election which looks as though he will lose. Given his reported natural bad temper, this kind of intimidatory behaviour would seem to be his way of releasing his own personal pressure valve. Acceptable or not (and I believe it to be completely unacceptable), it is the sign of a very poor manager who takes things out on his own staff in such a manner.
As for the 'charity' concerned in all this, I see their fault or otherwise in it as largely an irrelevance. The issue at hand is one of a poor Prime Minister abusing his authority by taking his own weaknesses out on other people; I hate bullies in any form and will go out of my way to stand up to those I come across. Occasionally this will land me in a spot of bother, but that won't stop me from standing up to them. I hate bullies.
True friends stab you in the front.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
23 February 2010
12:5941228#10
there have actually been no accusations levelled at the prime minister.
mrs pratt runs a charity that tells the "bullied" to get in touch with her husband who then charges a very large fee for sorting things out.
even the "daily mail" is of the opinion that it is a nothing story.
the best thing that gordon can do now is to get all of his staff together then shout at them and jab them with his finger to find out who made the allegations.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 February 2010
14:1041232#11
That is not true Howard at all.
Specific allegations have been made against Brown from more than one source, Labour insiders, ex civil servants, with Rawnsley being only the latest.
You are merely focusing on the anti-bullying charity.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 February 2010
11:3641273#12
barry
i can only quote from a government front bencher who asked that the accusers either "put up or shut up".
there are always rumours about anyone in the public eye.
24 February 2010
12:4641276#13
It is common knowledge and has been publicly acknowledged in the press and on the media that Gordie has always been prone to fits of pique, usually calmed by rough behaviour or harsh words or sulking. It is his nature and character, always has been and always will be.
The spin doctors are denying accusations, but so far none has denied Gordie is prone to such behaviour.
The leading defence voice is Mandelsson and I wouldn't trust him as far as a camel could spit in the desert.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 February 2010
16:5541288#14
sid
fits of pique, harsh words and sulking do not constitute bullying.
it is common knowledge that he is an emotional man, his staff would have known that prior to joining his employ.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 February 2010
18:2741293#15
Howard why are you trying to defend a nasty cheap little bully? have you not read the mass of revelations about him from a wide range of sources?
Do staff, junior civil servants, many of whom will have served Mrs T, Major and Blair deserve to be treated like dirt?
If you were to treat people the way he has you would be up in front of a tribunal. Brown is being protected by the Official Secrets Act. making it difficult if not impossible for the staff to speak for themselves.
read my blog, I have broadened the issue.
24 February 2010
19:1841299#16
Careful BArryW - Howard is right - no direct accusations against GB that could conceivably constitute bullying unless one wanted to really stretch it. And that woman who was - I use the word advisedly - CEO of the anti-bullying charity - I use the word loosely - was unacceptsably indiscreet and also appears dodgy, frankly. Charity HQ in the same building as the blues. Dave Boy Cameron a pal, dodgy returns, husbands HR company getting referrals from the charity, and she has also made accusations about John Prescott and his office within the last 18 months when his office has been defunct for 2 years.
Bullying is a specific nasty act - being demanding or losing ones temper isn't bullying. Shouting loudly into someones face "COMMUNICATE" could be called bullying as it is specific , targetted and inappropriate - and the CEO has been accused of this. In addition she has brought 2 legal claims for bullying against 2 firms, won £450k in one and lost the other because she was - wait for it - inappropriate and aggressive.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 February 2010
19:3441301#17
Bern - you are underplaying the allegations to excuse the inexcusable. Brown is hiding away behind a powerful No10 spin operation that is suckering you in and has itself bullied Mrs Pratt working overtime to discredit her most disgracefully. Brown's no10 machine have a lot of form for that kind of thing.
Yes, there have been direct accusations made against Brown in Rawnsley's book and also by other Labour insiders and I note that no legal action has been taken against them, Wyatt and others.
The reason this has created such a furore is because Rawnsley's reputation and contacts, which are second to none. He is a very credible writer, unlike Wyatt and some others who have exposed the same kind of thing.
I have absolutely no doubt that what he said is true. It is certainly true to form given what we have seen and heard of Brown over the last 13 years.
If you behaved towards junior staff the way Brown did you would be in a lot of trouble.
24 February 2010
20:0841306#18
To have no doubt would be naive to say the least.................
Also - I am not the Prime Minister!! FFS
24 February 2010
21:0041317#19
The political Editor for The Sun (Colin's gutter press?) suggests on national tv that Rawnsley's source is none other than Mandelsson himself.
There are rumours of big news re the bullying PM scheduled to appear in this weekends Sunday Times (not gutter press).
24 February 2010
22:0341320#20
Gutter Press - a common title for all press, earned and justified!!
