Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:01 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Mintball will answer for herself but if I was you I'd get your condiments of choice ready. I have a feeling that you are just about to be served your goolies on a plate

My flabber is still somewhat gasted at the poor level of Elpers's comprehension. Or perhaps it's just the poor level of his trolling.

Mind, given assorted issues in the NHS, one could make a claim for whistleblowers being protected – where the public interest is served.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:09 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I must say, my personal experience of the private sector is hardly one that illustrates that management would have sorted it out in the way that you imply, Jerry.

I've seen a pretty lengthy stream of private-sector bosses who would probably sack the complaining security guard and as for 'files', well they wouldn't even exist.

You are right in the guard would no longer work there but the files would exist - especially if it went to a tribunal. The role of HR is firstly to protect senior managers.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:58 am  

Isn't it ironic (don't you think) that Mitchell appears not to be kicking up a fuss that the fact he wrote to the IPCC complaining about police leaks to the press, has now been leaked to the press?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:53 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Isn't it ironic (don't you think) that Mitchell appears not to be kicking up a fuss that the fact he wrote to the IPCC complaining about police leaks to the press, has now been leaked to the press?

The campaigning by his team is a presentation in how to turn a news story on its head so that instead of being aggressor you become the victim, aided by a sympathetic section of the printed news media and a sympathetic TV News director who bought the story behind the "exclusive" footage as long as he could sell it alone.

The reason behind all of this is of course because he wants the top jobs and doesn't want his rash statement of the day after where he admitted behaviour unbecoming of a Minister (let alone a chief whip) to sit like a dirty smear on his CV for the rest of his parliamentary career.

When he is granted the EU job, universities all over this land will include this PR job in their media studies degree courses as the perfect case study in spin doctoring.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:32 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You are right in the guard would no longer work there but the files would exist - especially if it went to a tribunal. The role of HR is firstly to protect senior managers.

I'm sure that's very much the case in large companies.

But where there are under 100 staff and little if anything by way of HR – then not in my experience.

Mind, in my experience, HR is a pain in general. And people forget that such things were, in effect, foisted on the public sector when it was told, in general, that it had to start behaving like 'business'. So, press offices and HR departments and managers head-hunted from the private sector, even if that meant salaries had to be hiked (that last one was a very specific instruction).

As I've mentioned before, there are vans working around London on the sewer replacement project. they say: 'Murphy working with Optimise for Thames Water'. That's two lots of directors, two lots of shareholders, two HR departments, two press offices – etc etc – that have to be paid out of one job. It's bonkers.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:03 pm  

Mintball wrote:

My flabber is still somewhat gasted at the poor level of Elpers's comprehension. Or perhaps it's just the poor level of his trolling.

Mind, given assorted issues in the NHS, one could make a claim for whistleblowers being protected – where the public interest is served.

What are you talking about? This is not some whistleblower with a just cause we are talking about. It was a serving police officer who leaked her confidentional report to the press for political reasons. The conduct of some of her police colleagues has also been disgraceful, yet you at no stage find this worrying because it doesn't fit your political prejudice that so often fills your pompous postings.

And why when another point of view is presented do you so comfortably slide into a smug insult and suggest trolling. Sorry if I have interrupted a left wing public service mutual back slappers club, but I though it was a public forum open to all and rugby league fans in particular.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:34 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

What are you talking about? This is not some whistleblower with a just cause we are talking about. It was a serving police officer who leaked her confidentional report to the press for political reasons. The conduct of some of her police colleagues has also been disgraceful, yet you at no stage find this worrying because it doesn't fit your political prejudice that so often fills your pompous postings.

And why when another point of view is presented do you so comfortably slide into a smug insult and suggest trolling. Sorry if I have interrupted a left wing public service mutual back slappers club, but I though it was a public forum open to all and rugby league fans in particular.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:39 am  

Him wrote:

:lol:

You really would think that after Archer and Aitken, these arrogant tory 2@s would've learned their lesson.

I really do hope that Mitchell does go to law and the case is heard in open court. I'll be stocking up on popcorn

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:30 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

You really would think that after Archer and Aitken, these arrogant tory 2@s would've learned their lesson.

I really do hope that Mitchell does go to law and the case is heard in open court. I'll be stocking up on popcorn

So guilty before proven speaks the voice of justice from the left.

Remind me of the score between Tory & Labour for recent imprisonments? You needn't include the drunken brawling.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:42 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

So guilty before proven speaks the voice of justice from the left.

Remind me of the score between Tory & Labour for recent imprisonments? You needn't include the drunken brawling.

I think you missed the point there.
I believe he was referring to Archer and Aitken because of the perjury involved.
"Trusty sword of truth" and all that.