John Bercow banned from Parliament for life

I think you can separate his role of Speaker, which I think he was very good at, from his alleged treatment of and behaviour to staff. After all, our MPs should be robust enough to take the flack. Any proven bullying towards department staff should of course be thoroughly and properly investigated and dealt with in an appropriate manner. I do sometimes feel though that what is taken to be bullying by a manager can sometimes be merely a frustration with someone for not doing their job properly, or on time, so that the manager and other staff can get on with theirs. Believe me, I know many people in work who complain constantly about the fact that certain members of staff are unable, or unwilling, to do the work to the standard required but who seem impossible to sack or improve through training. In some situations this can sometimes be serious enough to endanger life and in others it is just low level irritation. Provided this was thoroughly and properly investigated and concrete proof was produced then the sentence fits the crime. On the other hand, if it was done by staff who were being pulled up for not working to standard and out of revenge, then that is a totally different situation. At all times though, discipling staff should be done in private or with a Union or Line Manager present where appropriate.

The allegations about being red-faced are interesting. He always looks a little red faced (tanned?) any way.
This is worth a watch news.sky.com/video/speaker-john-bercows-best-moments-11805751

I've found that a lot of small men have very big opinions of themselves, perhaps to make up for their lack of stature. This would seem to be the case with Bercow.

It doesn't mean that he couldn't or didn't do the job of Speaker well.

However, I didn't much like him either.

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.

17:13rafichagran

Agree Gaga some of the remarks here are viscous, the use of little twerp, and other descriptions are just nasty name calling and very childish.

Never liked him and as others have said, I wondered if his demeanour was due to his small stature.

Well said Chewbacca You don't have to be a foul mouthed bully who reduces your staff to tears to "stand up for democracy".

Karma? Was he a little man with 'little man' syndrome? If the bullying reports are true then he's got his comeuppance.

Agree Gaga some of the remarks here are viscous, the use of little twerp, and other descriptions are just nasty name calling and very childish.

How can we have a speaker who will stand up for our democracy if they know they will face a backlash like this?

You don't have to be a foul mouthed bully who reduces your staff to tears to "stand up for democracy". He deserves to face a backlash. As does Patel. There is never any excuse to be a bully.

I had no personal liking for him, but he stood up to Boris and insisted that parliamentary procedures should be followed. Hence the current recriminations. Good for him. Much better than the wet willy we have now - BJ can get away with anything and he knows it. How can we have a speaker who will stand up for our democracy if they know they will face a backlash like this?

The report makes interesting reading.
During a meeting demands that a staff member remain seated and then throws a mobile phone down onto a desk, so hard that it broke into pieces and hit them, and then screaming abuse at them.
Being told, before taking a business trip overseas, that a particular toiletrie item wouldn't be allowed through customs, but ignoring that advice and subsequently getting stopped and delayed whilst checked and then being angry and ostracizing the member of staff who warned him in the first place.
Becoming so irate and out of control with temper that he "was red faced with spittle coming out of his mouth and trembling with fury."
Excluding staff from decision making and then berating them for "being useless" when they didn't perform the task they hadn't known about.
Requesting meetings be set up but then, immediately before it's due to begin, he walks out stating that "He doesn't give a flying fuck" and leaves staff to deal with it.
Shouting that a staff member is "stupid, fucking useless and hopeless at their job" so loudly that he could be heard by people in other offices including junior members of staff.
Mimicking what staff member/s say and how they speak directly to their face/s when they've tried to speak to him.
Swearing, shouting, obscene language and being personally abusive to staff.
Belittling staff in front of others, particularly in daily meetings and telling them that he "isn't interested in their opinion" because of their "privileged background".

He denies it all.

Never cared for his pompous and awful behaviour but put it down to a lack of stature problem. However, I find the current incumbent nothing short of feeble and ineffectual and am currently wondering which I prefer.

Priti Patel continues to mislead. Yesterday she told the House (twice I believe) that a visa centre en route to Calais had been set up . It hasn't . No wonder Patel did not come to the House to answer Yvette Cooper's queries. Now there's a (Shadow unfortunately )Home Secretary you can believe in .

Kamiso

The case was more about bullying the staff who worked for him and parliament in general. Reducing staff to tears by publicly shouting and humiliating them is appalling.

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.

... who has defended bullying by Bercow?

You fail to mention the bullying by Priti Patel when suggesting that "bullying is fine in some circumstances". She also reduced some to tears.

I don't think anyone is putting the boot in re Boris for the sake of it, either. He's being held to account for many of the lies he's told. As any PM should be.

MaizieD

^ If he was such a bully why didn't the complainers bring action against him similar to that which was brought against Priti Patel?^

Priti Patel's behaviour was investigated by the Cabinet office; an investigation into breaking the Ministerial Code.

Bercow was, I understand, initially investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, he disputed the findings so this Independent Panel was set up to investigate. That's how I understand it anyway. So, two different investigating bodies (well, 3 if you count the IP).

I assume the different investigators had something to do with the differences in their positions.

Same conclusions, different treatment of the 'offenders'' [hm]

(Of course, the PM just overruled the result of the CO inquiry, making a complete nonsense of the Ministerial Code. Which is now a completely dead letter...)

I'm not altogether surprised that Bercow is questioning the legitimacy of the IP. After all, it isn't a recognised mechanism for complaints and appears to have been set up purely to investigate Bercow. I haven't heard of it being used again to investigate any other MP.

That was part of the proceedings against Priti but the case was due to be brought to an employment tribunal until an out of court settlement was reached. An undisclosed payment and I believe an NDA were involved.

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.

Really, so people made up his bullying ways, including women. Sorry I smell no fish, just good riddance to a small minded bully, who has got his just desserts.

Lesley60

I think he should be stripped of being a Lord he came over as a bully and an obnoxious little man with a massive chip on his shoulder

He cannot be stripped of the honour - because he was never made a Lord.

Facts matter. Even when they concern people you don't like.

^ If he was such a bully why didn't the complainers bring action against him similar to that which was brought against Priti Patel?^

Priti Patel's behaviour was investigated by the Cabinet office; an investigation into breaking the Ministerial Code.

Bercow was, I understand, initially investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, he disputed the findings so this Independent Panel was set up to investigate. That's how I understand it anyway. So, two different investigating bodies (well, 3 if you count the IP).

I assume the different investigators had something to do with the differences in their positions.

Same conclusions, different treatment of the 'offenders'' [hm]

(Of course, the PM just overruled the result of the CO inquiry, making a complete nonsense of the Ministerial Code. Which is now a completely dead letter...)

I'm not altogether surprised that Bercow is questioning the legitimacy of the IP. After all, it isn't a recognised mechanism for complaints and appears to have been set up purely to investigate Bercow. I haven't heard of it being used again to investigate any other MP.

He is still claiming his innocence maybe it would be better if he apologises and moves on.

I'm sure he appeared on European TV shows after Brexit. They loved him. Got him to shout Order! Order! and thought it was hilarious.

He came across as a pompous ass. Very similar attitude to the Queen's second son.

NfkDumpling

He is very smart and very good with words so standing up to him, especially if in an inferior position (work wise, not size wise), would be extremely hard. He doesn't come across as a man who would take being talked back to.

Listening to him on the radio this afternoon, the difference between him and Pritti Patel appears to be that she accepted, if reluctantly, the need to change her approach and moderate her behaviour (or at least try to) while he doesn't. He says he's not a bully and can't see that he ever has been and is refusing to accept his ban or the verdict. He says he's innocent, so therefore he is.

But surely the process of judging the bullying or alleged bullying is important as well. If he was such a bully why didn't the complainers bring action against him similar to that which was brought against Priti Patel? A report was never fully published and an out of court settlement prevented an employment tribunal. Money was paid out. So perhaps saying sorry was an inevitable process.
Questioning the legitimacy of the inquiry seems to be at the root of Bercow's argument. Something Priti couldn't do. Not with the payments made.
I'm not saying he wasn't a bully. Simply that there are unexplained anomalies in his case, and pointing out the differences in the two cases, where one was admitted and had evidence enough for a legal settlement, and the other seems to be a long internal inquiry.
It seems you can pay out public money and just say sorry and all is forgiven.

GillT57

Compared to the rather weak Speaker we have now, Bercow was good at keeping control. If he has been found guilty of bullying, his punishment is right, and the same should apply to Pritti Patel, equality and all that.

Hear hear.

I do agree bullies should be punished, but how come Priti Patel isn’t ?

Also…….The usual collection of snooty remarks along the lines of ghastly little man, little jumped up, nasty little man.

He seemed to have a poor attitude towards constituents - I agree that he seemed to forget that he was a public servant, voted in by the public. I can't say I was impressed by his wife posing, draped in a sheet, in the H of C - they seemed to want to turn it into the Bercow show rather than behave with some dignity.

He is very smart and very good with words so standing up to him, especially if in an inferior position (work wise, not size wise), would be extremely hard. He doesn't come across as a man who would take being talked back to.

Listening to him on the radio this afternoon, the difference between him and Pritti Patel appears to be that she accepted, if reluctantly, the need to change her approach and moderate her behaviour (or at least try to) while he doesn't. He says he's not a bully and can't see that he ever has been and is refusing to accept his ban or the verdict. He says he's innocent, so therefore he is.

It was his patronising attitude to his constituents that annoyed me - ‘ I will do as I like’, I always thought MPs worked for their constituents, but not him