UK: Bully Brown

BBC News - Brown 'very upset' by bully claims, says Ed Balls

What gets me about this story is that Rawlings says his source is "24 carat" but why not then disclose the source? Why not have the source come forward? Why hide behind anonymity. The problem with this story is that there is apparently someone saying he's bullying but there were no complaints or investigations made into it and now his reputation is being further damaged without any chance of recourse.

I'm not fond of Brown but I think the fact that he can't come back and properly investigate the matter into something which is very serious is really appalling.

It's this sort of thing that is turning me off of politics altogether.  Who cares if Brown is mean to his staff?  Lots of people have mean bosses, lots of people are a££holes; there are much larger problems to be solved, so let's concentrate on those instead of worrying if a particular politician is "nice" or not.

I would much rather hear something about the differences between the parties' policy proposals.  Thus far all I can figure out is all three of the major UK parties are for whatever will get people to vote for them.  They don't know what it is, but if it gets your vote, they're for it.

p.s. Reading that first paragraph over, I realize it could be read as a personal rebuke.  That was aimed at society rather than you particularly for posting it, Ashley.  You're cool.   

What gets me about this story is that Rawlings says his source is "24 carat" but why not then disclose the source? Why not have the source come forward? Why hide behind anonymity. The problem with this story is that there is apparently someone saying he's bullying but there were no complaints or investigations made into it and now his reputation is being further damaged without any chance of recourse.

I don't know if you watch Newswipe (it's on tonight if there's not been a scheduling change), but besides being funny, there is a lot of valid criticism of the media on both sides of the pond.  One of the criticisms that the show levelled at British media is that this tendency to use unnamed sources in almost every big story is a huge weakness of British press.  Basically, unnamed sources are common in stories, and when you step back and think about it, it amounts to the press becoming a mouthpiece of the government, civil service, various PR people, and the political parties.  When sources aren't named, there is no responsibility for bad information, and it gives a lot more room for spin.  The example the academic gave a few weeks ago was the case of Jean Charles de Menezes and the information given soon after the shooting from "sources".

The press isn't meant to be a tool of the government, corporations, political parties or movements, or wealthy individuals to shape and influence people's opinions, especially without the risk of losing credibility if the information they give is inaccurate, especially deliberately inaccurate.

It's this sort of thing that is turning me off of politics altogether.  Who cares if Brown is mean to his staff?  Lots of people have mean bosses, lots of people are a££holes; there are much larger problems to be solved, so let's concentrate on those instead of worrying if a particular politician is "nice" or not.

My husband and I were talking about this last night.  The whole idea that it's called "bullying" sort of leads me to believe that the adults in this country don't mind being infantilised.

Cruelty and harassment at work should be dealt with, but it's rarely something that could be considered akin to "bullying".  Does he beat them up for their second home allowance?  Does he go to a social networking site and plaster a bunch of mean things about them (and yes, I know this has happened from both Labour and the Tories, but was it to the extent that would be considered bullying, and was it Brown who did it)?  Does he throw slushies in their faces (thanks Glee)?

Don't get me wrong, we're not Labour supporters, but this is a pretty obvious political move.

ETA: I do think there are adult bullies.  Some people who are abusive to children or other vulnerable people, groups of peers who have somehow retained the sort of school yard mentality, sometimes even the lone adult in the workplace, but it's a different motivation and different set of behaviours (and effects really) than an angry or frustrated superior.

p.s. Reading that first paragraph over, I realize it could be read as a personal rebuke.  That was aimed at society rather than you particularly for posting it, Ashley.  You're cool.  

LOL. Cheers.

It's this sort of thing that is turning me off of politics altogether.  Who cares if Brown is mean to his staff?  Lots of people have mean bosses, lots of people are a££holes; there are much larger problems to be solved, so let's concentrate on those instead of worrying if a particular politician is "nice" or not.

Which I totally agree with. There are mean people in any office but what this "source" is accusing him of is shoving his staff up against the walls and grabbing their lapels and stuff. That's assault and a very serious charge.

I don't know if you watch Newswipe (it's on tonight if there's not been a scheduling change), but besides being funny, there is a lot of valid criticism of the media on both sides of the pond.  One of the criticisms that the show levelled at British media is that this tendency to use unnamed sources in almost every big story is a huge weakness of British press.  Basically, unnamed sources are common in stories, and when you step back and think about it, it amounts to the press becoming a mouthpiece of the government, civil service, various PR people, and the political parties.  When sources aren't named, there is no responsibility for bad information, and it gives a lot more room for spin.  The example the academic gave a few weeks ago was the case of Jean Charles de Menezes and the information given soon after the shooting from "sources".

The press isn't meant to be a tool of the government, corporations, political parties or movements, or wealthy individuals to shape and influence people's opinions, especially without the risk of losing credibility if the information they give is inaccurate, especially deliberately inaccurate.

I saw that episode you're talking about. I hadn't noticed it before. I just took the news at face value and it was only when I saw Newswipe that I began to notice this is a big thing in the British press. Which is why I find stories like this bogus. Make the source come out of hiding and then tell his story openly to the press and then I'll begin to believe it.

Don't get me wrong, we're not Labour supporters, but this is a pretty obvious political move.

Especially when Cameron was totally on the story and quoted as saying he would think that Downing Street would want to investigate this asap.