Tory Party Bullying

Jess, brings back memories of their youth movement in the eighties, they were fired up with a hang Mandela campaign,

Elliot's parents are, according to Mail, are boycotting the Tory party enquiry because they are not assured law firm is impartial. I guess if the Tories had a crumb of sense, and the confidence of their convictions, they would have given the job to a left-leaning firm. Or even better, a Scottish or Welsh one.
(shades of the attempt to find a chair for the child abuse scandal, where they ended up going to NZ to find someone who was not linked to the London networks.)

www.itv.com/news/2015-12-13/parents-of-tory-activist-elliot-johnson-to-boycott-inquiry-into-bullying-claims/

Oh how I like the suggestion of a Scottish or Welsh enquiry , brilliant

Latest update from Guardian. Unaccountably tories running an event to celebrate the very campaign that Clarke ran. What is not to get?

linkis.com/www.theguardian.com/li7j0

There are also stories about masonic links in circulation. Specially for those members who always thought they were a sinisterbunch - at least in some areas.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3347667/Tatler-Tory-s-Freemason-cronies-Mark-Clarke-goes-lodge-councillor-worked-law-firm-chosen-conduct-inquiry-bullying-scandal.html

No wish to upset anyone but no surprise if the masons are involved ,nthsnkd you Jess

And another top Tory resigns. Blaney, a lawyer who has been chairing the foundation set up to commemorate Thatcher's legacy.
A few days ago it was reported that "he could not sleep at night" because he had witnessed Mark Clarke punch someone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367357/ANOTHER-Conservative-resigns-bullying-scandal-Thatcher-foundation-chief-forced-quit-links-Tatler-Tory.html

Nothing will be said untill after the inquest of the young man who took his own life, they are a disgrace and Cameron is allowing this

Because of the risk of conflicts of interest/corruption I don't think any public employees/officials, professionals who are bound by a fiduciary duty/duty of care, and certainly MPs, should be allowed to be members of a secretive organisation like the Freemasons. (I thought that, after some sort of issue which raised concern several years ago, police officers were not allowed to join the Masons but apparently that's not the case. I find that worrying.)

Police forces have their own lodges as do some churches

I agree that it is a disgrace that police officers and other public officials (elected and employed) are allowed to be members of a secretive organisation that seems to only exist in order to promote the interests of its members.
We will never know the extent to which masonic links to police are implicated in some of the historical child abuse scandals in which politicians etc who are now dead seem to have acted with impunity.

True, we will never know Jess, but I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised

www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/21/telegraph-fined-email-conservatives

What about this?
Do you think they were fined enough? Not forgetting that the owners of the Torygraph - which we are quite entitled to call it now, I would have thought - do not pay taxes in this country.

Certaintly not fined enough, but it is the Torygraph

tompride.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/why-hasnt-unilever-fired-alleged-tory-bully-mark-clarke-its-what-he-wants/

An article about Clarke. He is apparently a director at Unilever.
Do you think he should be fired from Unilever?

According to the article, a fine of up to £500,000 could have been imposed and, given the seriousness of the breach, I think, the £30,000 fine is derisory. Of course, most people are aware that the Telegraph has a strong Conservative bias but I think directly contacting individual readers in an effort to strongly influence their voting choice is totally unacceptable.

I don't agree with Clarke's view that even if an employee has done nothing wrong it should still be possible to fire them. There have certainly been noises supporting that point of view but, fortunately, at the moment, as long as a permanent employee has worked for an employer for over two years he/she cannot be sacked without grounds laid down under employment law. This includes, I believe, that if an employee, through their behaviour, brings their employer into disrepute then they can be dismissed. Hopefully at some stage this will happen in relation to this man but if the company did not follow employment law then presumably it would be in breach of employment law/contract.

I'd say the word "director" in Clarke's case may be misleading. It often in UK means "board member" but in some companies all kinds of people are given grandiose titles. Lots of people on call centres, earring less than 20k get called things like "account executive" for instance.
I guess Unilever are watching carefully. They will be waiting for the results of the Tory enquiry and the coroners. They will also be very vigilant , if they have any sense, that he is not bullying his staff. And his staff will be watching out for it. Seems unlikely that there are 2 completely different personalities in play.
He's described as a marketing consultant on wikipedia and that is how I have heard him described before.

Yes, JessM, it is not obvious where that Senior Director bit comes from.
If it was on Unilever's website, they've removed it now.

News out today says that Elliott Johnson had tried to kill himself three times before he did so last September, that his parents were having difficulty accepting his homosexuality, and that he had rowed with them before the successful suicide.

How sad. That poor family. Time to forget political squabbling.

There's more to it than that, bags.

The report was leaked. The inquest does not start until next week.
There are potential criminal matters being looked into by the police.

Of course there's more to it but my post didn't say otherwise. I only commented on some stuff that was news to me and which is part of the story.

You didn't think I was trying to excuse Tory Party bullying, did you, dj?

I expect so.

No, I didn't. What I was saying is that the report was leaked. There could be criminal proceedings.
A leaked report could jeopardise those criminal proceedings.
Perhaps it's better to wait until the inquest is over before discussing it.

Perhaps it is but then, equally, perhaps it's OK to discuss mention points that are already published in a reputable newspaper that will not want to tarnish its reputation with contempt of court.