John Bercow banned from Parliament for life

Methinks those in government are scared of him and are really scared of the thought of him standing as an MP for Labour.

Maudi

Plenty of nasty and childish name calling on GN about Boris bet you didn't call that out.

He got his just desserts, he is a nasty little bully.

Really
how do you know? You bet wrong. I just do not name call. My 8 year old Grandson called Boris a Big Fat Liar. I spoke to him about making personal remarks about people. He is entitled to say he feels he is untruthful, but he knows now that calling someone a big fat liar is wrong. He is 8 what's is the adults excuse.

MaizieD

^Surprised at how many GN’s agree to this as it allows them to put the boot in re Boris. Shocking but not too surprised that bullying is fine in some circumstances account to the haters.^

Do show us where anyone has defended him.

Try reading posts with a bit of comprehension.

The assumption has been that the action was taken against him because he was anti Tory not because he was a mean nasty bully.

I think that there is a fine line between being an assertive boss/human and a bullying boss/human

Different folks will have different lines in the sand

However, if there are multiple complaints of a similar nature and they are upheld then there should be consequences.

It has always been my personal opinion that many (definitely not all, I hasten to add) people who claw their way to the top of the tree in many professions can be unpleasant some/most of the time.

I don't think calling a proven liar a liar is a personal attack.
I don't think calling a proven untrustworthy man untrustworthy is a personal attack.
I don't think calling a proven incompetent man is a personal attack.
I don't think describing a man offering a policy vacuum as a man with a policy vacuum is a personal attack.
I don't think that saying that a man who is an apathetic administrator as an apathetic administrator is a personal attack.

I do think "nasty little man" is a personal attack.
I do think "ghastly little man" is a personal attack.
I do think "horrible little jumped-up twerp" is a personal attack.
I do think "horrid little man" is a personal attack.
I do think "obnoxious little man with a massive chip on his shoulder" is a personal attack.

That sample of personal attacks lacks both knowledge and information. The descriptions of Johnson are known truths.

Those playing out personality politics are diminishing in their power. When we daily watch a real statesman we know this cannot last. One day the loud-voiced verbal ignorance will once more be quiet. We will, hopefully, once more have someone with stature running our country.

When I was a young employee I think that I was overly sensitive to all criticism.

When I became an employer I kept how I felt in mind, and have always tried to be fair and understanding of employees feelings and needs.

He was our local MP and before he was elevated to Speaker he was quite active in the constituency.

My younger daughter was studying A level Politics in 2007 and JB allowed her to come and shadow him for 2 days, one in the constituency and one in London. He was charm itself with her, showed her round the House of Commons, bought her lunch and insisted on making sure she got home safely both times in his official car. For that I thank him.

I may not agree with what he has evolved into since then but
back then he did have a heart.

I do wonder though about the timing of the complaints. One was brought by Lord Lisvain in 2020. Surely if you are really concerned about bullying you should complain when it actually happened and not 10 years after you have ceased to work in that job and been elevated to the H of L? And when the person you are complaining about has actually also retired and been suggested for a peerage.

Kamiso

MaizieD

Surprised at how many GN’s agree to this as it allows them to put the boot in re Boris. Shocking but not too surprised that bullying is fine in some circumstances account to the haters.

Do show us where anyone has defended him.

Try reading posts with a bit of comprehension.

The assumption has been that the action was taken against him because he was anti Tory not because he was a mean nasty bully.

You do need to improve your comprehension skills, don't you?

Querying why one proven bully is allowed to keep her job but another gets singled out for a seemingly unique form of investigation is in no way defending the second person. It's just what I, and others, have said. It's asking why two people found to have committed the same offence are treated completely differently.

I actually think that your assumption that action was taken against him deliberately is spot on correct. But as he was a tory MP himself it couldn't have been because he was 'anti tory', could it? But pointing this out is NOT defending him.

Well well.
Bet Mrs Sally Bercow is very disappointed. Hey ho.

Mr. Bercow has been damned as a bully and a serial liar.
And suspended from the Labour Party (which he recently joined).

Bet he doesn’t make London Mayor now ....

Some of the comments here sound like bullying to me. Perhaps that's why the commenters are defending him - a man after their own hearts? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but no need to be so aggressive.

GagaJo

karmalady

horrible little jumped-up twerp. Serves him right

Why? Because he wasn't posh?

No because he was a bully.

John...
Your behaviour in the chamber illustrated your comfort, even delight, in abusing your position to put-down those you didn't like - especially if it made you feel 'clever'.

Lord Lisvane has an impeccable and impartial reputation, and he was pretty clear you were a bully.
The world finds it easier to believe him than you.

DaisyAnne

I don't think calling a proven liar a liar is a personal attack.
I don't think calling a proven untrustworthy man untrustworthy is a personal attack.
I don't think calling a proven incompetent man is a personal attack.
I don't think describing a man offering a policy vacuum as a man with a policy vacuum is a personal attack.
I don't think that saying that a man who is an apathetic administrator as an apathetic administrator is a personal attack.

I do think "nasty little man" is a personal attack.
I do think "ghastly little man" is a personal attack.
I do think "horrible little jumped-up twerp" is a personal attack.
I do think "horrid little man" is a personal attack.
I do think "obnoxious little man with a massive chip on his shoulder" is a personal attack.

That sample of personal attacks lacks both knowledge and information. The descriptions of Johnson are known truths.

Those playing out personality politics are diminishing in their power. When we daily watch a real statesman we know this cannot last. One day the loud-voiced verbal ignorance will once more be quiet. We will, hopefully, once more have someone with stature running our country.

It's ironic that those who get annoyed about what they call "Boris bashing" are quite happy to do a bit of "Bercow bashing".

Personally, I've not criticised Johnson for his physical appearance, his private life - nor wanted to know (why should I?) how many children he has. Neither have I condemned Carrie, nor said anything unpleasant about his innocent children. Because that is what would constitute "Boris bashing" - making snide remarks simply for the sake of it.

Holding your government and its leader to account is not "bashing". All our politicians should be answerable for their behaviour. Why should we quietly accept lies, false claims, boorishness, refusal to answer straight questions?

He got it right with the vaccination programme, and kudos to him for that. But I'm not going to keep quiet on that basis.

As for Bercow - I think he certainly did defend Parliament - there is no doubt that the executive power swayed too far in its own favour. But if he is a bully, and people have testified that he was, then he, too, must be answerable in the same vein as Johnson. A bully is a bully. And as Patel has also reduced some "to tears", she should also be accountable.

Johnson, Bercow, Patel - all are our public servants - we put them in power, and we have a right to ask them to take responsibility for their actions. It's unfortunate that, in Johnson's case, this is seen as "bashing", but the constant criticism of him is because he continues, blithely, to tell lies for which he never apologises. And his refusal to stick to the point in PMQs is now legendary. I will not even delve into the completely unnecessary slur against Starmer re Savile. He's shown a complete lack of integrity and honour. And he shames us all because of it.

DaisyAnne and Dickens, very good posts.

Lyng17

Some of the comments here sound like bullying to me. Perhaps that's why the commenters are defending him - a man after their own hearts? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but no need to be so aggressive.

As has been asked, and ignored, many times in this thread - who is defending him?

He isn't actually 'banned from all government buildings for life', incidentally. It has been suggested that he should lose his parliamentary pass, but in the event that this happens he can still go to the public gallery, and apparently can borrow a pass from a friend and use that perfectly legally (according to BBC News Channel this afternoon).

I'm really pleased the bullying claim was upheld and a real penalty imposed. Bullying is a difficult thing to prove and it can breed a culture of treating colleagues poorly and yet there have been few cases where bullies have had to face consequences. I do get what others are saying about the political nature of the investigations, & agree he was effectual during Brexit, but one bully punished is one to the good in my book - the vast majority get away with it.

Doodledog

Hmmm. It is interesting that someone who enforced the law in parliament in ways that irritated the government was investigated and found guilty under the same government, and is now prevented from having any further influence in parliament.

It's really difficult to argue against the idea that bullies shouldn't be stopped in their tracks, but this seems to me to have the whiff of fish about it.

He ‘irritated’ because he abused his position. Nasty man and history will judge him.

Did he? How did he abuse his position?

I am not a parliamentary expert, but I was glued to the parliament channel during Brexit, and I thought he was excellent at stopping shenanigans and abuse of the system, which was rife.

Admittedly I am a remainer, but I genuinely don't think that is why I had a lot of time for him. The rule of law and democracy are very important, regardless of the political situation, and IMO he prevented even more abuse from happening.

If he was a bully, then that was wrong, and I am not defending that, but this is clearly yet another case of one rule for the government and another for everyone else.

I am not defending him. I do question complaints that took over 10 years to be brought. I do question one complainant encouraging another to lodge a complaint. I do question post it notes, undated and stuck into a diary being regarded as made at the time of the incident and not afterwards. I do note that an employment tribunal requires a grievance complaint to be made within three months of the incident. And that none of these people chose that route.
It seems fairly obvious that what triggered the complaints was Jeremy Corbyn proposing him for a peerage.
I think he is probably a volatile and demanding man who uses bad language and shouts a lot. Is it bullying? I'm not certain.

Why did they wait so long is used time and time again against women in particular. I just dont want to play that game.

The problem with bullies, no matter who they are or what position they hold, is that they never admit to what they are or apologise for the harm they've caused. It's irrelevant how long their victim waits to report what has been done to them; that delay can be caused for all manner of reasons (the same as victims of other abuses). If Bercow and Patel were big enough (nothing to do with physical stature) to at least admit to what they'd done and sincerely apologise to their victims, it may go some way to repairing their credibility and reputation.

I think he is probably a volatile and demanding man who uses bad language and shouts a lot.
Is it bullying? I'm not certain.

It would be in my place of work.