Sir Philip Rutnam

[Shandypants]

The government has agreed a settlement with regards to Priti Patel bullying claims. Interested to see how the press will report this.

 

[Wizaard]

The settlement will include NDA presumably.

However, if there was no case to answer, as Boris repeatedly claimed, why settle?

Even the way it was handled was a breach of the Civil Service Code, regardless of the outcome.

 

[EPM46]

Yep, another NDA with details of her deficient management skills swept under the carpet!

 

[Shandypants]

Strange how everyone jumps on Sturgeon. Deflection tactics

 

[Archibald Knox]

Maybe the leaking from the Palace about Haz and Megs is all part of the smokescreen to hide the Priti Patel settlement and protect her? Good day to bury bad news? Errrrr, on second thoughts, probably not.

 

[basilrobbie]

True story about Jo Moore.

On the very day that she uttered that famous phrase, I had cause to speak to her about a different issue. In that case, I argued that we should be circumspect about what we released to the media - and it was her who wanted far greater disclosure. It must be difficult to compartmentalise your mind like that.

 

[Shandypants]

The taxpayer is footing the bill for her bullying, that can't be right.

 

[Recidivist3]

£340k plus costs

 

[poolseasider]

The taxpayer is footing the bill for her bullying, that can't be right.

Nearly the same situation as the Salmond case then 500k plus costs but hey you can't have it both ways.
Both equally diabolical.

 

[Wizaard]

Nearly the same situation as the Salmond case then 500k plus costs but hey you can't have it both ways.
Both equally diabolical.

Except despite everything that's been said, the Salmond case ended with him acquitted, while Priti's case has literally been bought off.

 

[poolseasider]

Except despite everything that's been said, the Salmond case ended with him acquitted, while Priti's case has literally been bought off.

They where told twice not pursue the case against Salmond but still did.
So would this have cost more if carried on to the tax payer we'll never know.

Both cases as bad as each other the sums involved.

 

[Wizaard]

They where told twice not pursue the case against Salmond but still did.
So would this have cost more if carried on to the tax payer we'll never know.

Both cases as bad as each other the sums involved.

Shouldn't involve taxpayer's money. If you incur costs for personal reasons you should bear the costs. In all cases.

 

[Shandypants]

Nearly the same situation as the Salmond case then 500k plus costs but hey you can't have it both ways.
Both equally diabolical.

The tax payers alliance must be very upset about us picking up the bill for Patels unpleasant behaviour

 

[Wizaard]

The tax payers alliance must be very upset about us picking up the bill for Patels unpleasant behaviour

I doubt it.

 

[poolseasider]

The tax payers alliance must be very upset about us picking up the bill for Patels unpleasant behaviour

Wouldn't have thought so.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

There must be other claims apart from unfair dismissal as otherwise this represents a significant over-settlement

Edit to add he was claiming he was a victim of whistleblowing There are no caps on compensation there

 

[Loco]

Except despite everything that's been said, the Salmond case ended with him acquitted, while Priti's case has literally been bought off.

There are two different Salmond cases.
The relevant one here is the Judicial Review he initiated into the Scot Gov handling of the charges against him. This is now under scrutiny by the parliamentary committee as SG dropped the case eventually (advised they had no chance of winning by their lawyers) and SG (taxpayers) had to pay him compo.

The other case was his trial on 13 counts of sexual harassment. He was found not guilty by a jury of 12, the 13th being not proven. Hence innocent, despite Sturgeon constantly intimating the opposite.

 

[southshorepool]

There's a thread on Salmond already. This is about Pritti Patel.